in the Star-Chamber upon the Proclamation against Building and that I had given Sentence against the said Proclamation To which I answered That Presidents were to be seen and Considerations to be had upon Conference with my Brethren for Melius est recurrere quam male currere and Indictments conclude contra leges statuta never contra regiam Proclamationem At last my motion was allowed and the Lords appointed the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham to consider of it Note the King by his Proclamation or otherwise cannot change any part of the Common-Law Statute-Law or Customs of the Realm 11 H. 4. 37. Fortescue in laudibus legum Ang. cap. 9. 18 Ed. 4. 35 36 c. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. ubi non est lex ubi non est transgressio ergo That which cannot be punished without Proclamation cannot be punished with it Vide le Stat. 31 H. 8. cap. 8. But if a man be indicted upon a Contempt against a Proclamation he shall be Fined anâ— imprisoned Vide Fortescue cap. 9. 18 34 36 37 c. In all Cases the King out of his Providence and to prevent dangers may prohibite them before which will aggravate the Offence if it be afterwards committed And as it is a Grand Prerogative of the King to make Proclamations 22 H. 8. Procl B. yet we find Presidents of Proclamations utterly against Law and Reason and therefore void For Quae contra rationem Juris introducta sunt non debent trahi in sequentiam An Act made to License Forreiners to Merchandize in London H. 4. by Proclamation prohibited the Execution of it usque ad prox Parliament which was against Law Vide doâ—s claus 8 H. 4. Proc. in London but 9 H. 4. An Act was made That all Irish should depart the Realm before the Feast of the Nativity this only was in terrorem being utterly against Law Hollingshead 772. Anno Dom. 1546. 37 H. 8. The Whorâ—-houses vulgo Stews were suppressed by Proclamation and found of Trumpet In the same Term Râ—solved by the two Chief Justices Chief Baron and Baron Altham upon Conference between the Lords of the Privy-Council and them That the King by his Proclamation cannot create any Offence which was not an Offence before for then he may alter the Law And the Law of England is divided into three parts 1. Common-Law 2. Statute-Law 3. Custom But the Kings Proclamation is none of them Resolved also That he hath no Prerogative but what the Law of the Land allows him but he mry by Proclamation admonish his Subjects that they keep the Laws upon pain to be inflicted by Law c. Lastly If the Offence be not punishable in the Star-Chamber Prohibition by Proclamation cannot make it punishable there And after this Resolution no Proclamation imposing Fine and Imprisonment was made c. Mich. 8 Jac. Regis Prohibitions It was Resolved in this Term That if a man be excommunicated by the Ordinary where he ought not as after a general Pardon c. and the Defendant being Negligent doth not sue a Prohibition but remains excommunicate by 40 dayes and upon Certificate in Canc is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo no Prohibition lies in this Case because he is taken by the Kings Writ Then it was moved what remedy the Party hath who is wrongfully excommunicate to which it was answered he hath three Remedies 1. He may have a Writ out of Chancery to absolve him 14 H. 4. fol. 14. and with this agrees 7 Ed. 4. 14. 2. When he is excommunicate against the Law of this Realm so that he cannot have a Writ de Cauâ—fone admittenda then he ought Parere mandatis Ecclesiae in sorma Juris i. e. Ecclesiastici where in truth it 's Excommunicatio contra jus forman Juris i. e. Communis Juris But if he shew his Cause to the Bishop and Request him to assoyl him either because he was excommunicate after the Offence pardoned or that the Cause did not appear in Ecclesiastical Cognizance and he refuse he may have an Action Sur le Case against the Ordinary and with this agrees Dr. St. lib. 2. cap. 32. fol. 119. 3. If the Party be excommunicate for nonâ—e of the Causes mentioned in the Act 5 Eliz. cap. 23. then he may plead this in the Kings Bench and so avoid the Penalties in the Act. Note It was Resolved by the Court c. That where one is cited before the Dean of the Articles in cause of defamation for calling the Plaintiff Where out of the Diocess of London against the Statute of 23 H. 8. And the Plaintiff hath Sentence and the Defendant is excommunicated and so continues 80 dayes And upon Certificate into the Chancery a Writ of Excommunicato capiendo is granted and the Defendant taken and imprisoned thereby that he shall not have a Prohibition upon the Statute 23 H. 8. for no Writ in the Register extends to it but there is a Writ there called de cautione admittenda when the Defendant is taken by the Kings Writ de excommunicato capiendo de parendo mandatis Ecclesiae and to assoyl and deliver the Defendant But in the Case at Bar it does not appear to us judicially without Information that the Citation is against the forme of the Statute And the Information comes too late in this Case after the Defendant hath persisted so long in his Contumacy and is taken by the Kings Writ and imprisoned Admiralty It was Resolved per totam Curiam That if One be sued in the Admiralty-Court for a thing alledged to be done upon the High-Sea within the Admirals Jurisdiction and the Defendant plead and confess the thing done and after Sentence the Court will be advised to Grant a Prohibition upon surmise That it was done infra corpus comitatus against their own confession unless it can be made appear to the Court by matter in Writing or other good matter that this was done upon the Land for otherwise every one will stay till after Sentence and then for vexation only sue out a Prohibition And admonition was given to them that sue out Prohibitions That they should not keep them long in their Hands or untill they perceive they cannot prevail in the Ecclesiastical Court then to cast in their Prohibition for if they abuse that liberty to the vexation of the Party we will take such order as in case of a Writ of Priviledge if the Defendant keep it till the Jurors are ready c. it shall not be allowed Hill 8 Jacob. Regis In this Term in Doctor Trevor's Case who was Chancellor of a Bishop in Wales It was Resolved That the Office of a Chancellor and Register c. in Ecclesiastical Courts are within the Statute 5 Ed. 6. cap. 16. which Act being made for avoiding corruption of Officers c. and advancement of worthy Persons shall be expounded most beneficially to suppress Corruption And because the Law allows Ecclesiastical Courts to
of the Perjury by all the Lords in the Star-Chamber and it was Resolved by all That it was by the Common-Law punishable before any Statute Hayes Case in Cur-Wardorum By Inquisition in the County of Middlesex Anno 6 Jac. by vertue of a diem clausit extremum after the death of Humphry Willward it was found that the said Humphry died seized of a Messuage and 26 Acres of Land in Stepney and that John Willward was his Heir being 14 years and 9 days old and that the Land was held of the King in capite by Knights Service John Willward died within age and by Inquisition in Middlesex 8 Jun. Anno Jac. by vertue of a Writ of Deveneront after the said John's death it was found that John dyed seized in Ward to the King and that the said Messuage and Lands at the time of the said John's death were holden of the Dean of Pauls as of his Mannor of Shadwel All the mean Rates incurred in John's life-time are paid to the King 1. The Questions are 1. Whether by John's death and finding of the mean Tenure in the Deveneront the fiâ—st Office granted to Points be determined 2. Whether the Tenure found by the first Office may be traversed And as to these Questions it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and chief Baron That where the said John dyed the Office found by force of the Diem clausit extremum after Humphries death whereby the King was entituled to the Guardianship of John hath taken its effect and is executed and does remain as Evidence for the King after Johns death but yet is not traversable for it is traversable during the time it remains in force onely and the Jurors upon the Deveneront after the death of the said John are at liberty to find the certainty of the Tenure and they are not concluded by the first Inquisition and with this agrees 1 H. 4. 68. And this appears by the diversity between the Writ of Diem clausit extremum and the Deveneront which is but in one Point to wit the Diem clausit extremum is general And the Deveneront is not general but does restrain onely the Lands and Tenements quod deveneront c. And thus it was Resolved nono Jacobi in the Court of Wards in the Case of Dune Lewis Award of Capias Uâ—lagatum by Justices of the Peace In this same Term the Opinion of all the Court of Common-Pleus was That if one be out-lawed before Justices of Assize or Justices of Peace upon an Indictment of Felony that they may award a Capias Utlagatum and so was the Opinion of Pâ—riam Chief Baron and all the Court of Exchequer as to Justices of Peace for they that have power to award process of Outlawry have also power to award a Capias utlagatum See 34 H. 8. c. 14. See Lamb. Justice of Peace fol. 503. contra But see 1 Ed. 6. cap. 1. Justices of Peace in case of Profanation of the Sacrament shall award a Capias Utlagatum throughout all England Hersey's Case Star-Chamber John Hersey Gent exhibited his Bill in the Star-chamber against Anthony Barker Knight Thomas Barker Councellor at Law Robert Wright Doctor of Divinity Ravenscroft Clerk and John Hai is and thereby charged the Defendants with forging the Will of one Margery Pain and the Cause came to Hearing ad requisitionem defendentium and upon hearing the Plaintiffs Councel there appeared no Presumption against any of the Defendants but that the Testament was duly proved in the Ecclesiastical Court and upon an Appeal was also affirmed before Commissioners Delegates and Decreed also in Chancery So that it appeared to the Court that the said Bill was preferred of meer malice to slander the Defendants Now because the Defendants had no Remedy at Law for the said Slander and if it should pass unpunished it may encourage men It was Resolved by the Court That by the course of the Court and according to former Presidents the Court may give Damages to the Defendants and so it was done viz. 200 l. to the Doctor of Divinity 200 Marks to the Knight 40 l. to the Clerk 120 l. to the Woman And it was said that Creare ex ihilo quando bonum est est divinum sed creare aliquid ex nihilo quando est malum est diabolicum et plus Maledicite nocâ—nt quam Benedicite docent Hill 2 Jac. Regis Theodore Tomlinson brought an Action of account for Goods against one Philips in the Common Pleas and thereupon Philips sued Tomlinson in the Admiralty supposing the Goods to have been received in Forraign Parts beyond Sea and Tomlinson being committed for refusing to answer upon his Oath to some Interrogatories brought his Habeas Corpus Upon which it was resolved by the Court of Common plea in thrâ—e Points viz. 1. That the Court of Admiralty hath no Cognizance of things done beyond Sea and this appears plainly by the Statute 13 R. 2. cap. 5. and the 19 H 6. fol. 7. 2. That the Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty are according to the Civil Law and therefore the Court is not of Record and so cannot assess a Fine as the Judges of a Court of Record may 3. It doth appear that the Interrogatories were of such things as were within their Jurisdiction and the Parry ought by Law to answer This Case was intended by my Lord Coke to be inserted into his 7th Report but that the King commanded it should not be Printed but the Judges resolved ut supra Corven's Case Right to Sâ—ats in the Church Corven did Libel against Pym for a Seat in a Church in Dâ—vonshire And Pym by Sergeant Hutton moved for a Prohibition upon this Reason that himself is seized of a House in the said Parish and that he and all whose Estates he hath in the House have had a Seat in an Isle of the Church And it was Resolved by the Court that if a Lord of a Mannor or other Person who hath his House and Land in the Parish time out of mind and had a Seat in an Isle of the same Church so that the Isle is proper to his Family and have maintained it at their Charges that if the Bishop would dispossess him he shall have a Prohibition But for a Seat in the Body of the Church iâ— a Question ariseth it is to be decided by the Ordinary because the Freehold is to the Parson and is common to all the Inhabitants And it is to be presumed that the Ordinary who hath Cure of Soules will take Order in such Cases according to right and conveniency and with this agrees 8 H. 7. 12. And the Chief Justice Dame Wick her Case 9 H. 4. 14. which was The Lady brought a Bill in the Kings-Bench against a Parson Quare Tunicam unam vocatam A Coat Armor and Pennons with her Husband Sir Hugh Wick his Arms and a Sword in a Chappel where he was buried and the Parson claimed them as Oblations And it is there
all his Right Estate c. The Plaintiff surjoyneth and saith that the said sum of 5 l. 6 s. 8 d. c. was not rationabilis finis as the said Thomas Bradley above hath alleadged c. Upon which the Defendant doth demur in Law c. And in this Case these Points were Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices 1. If the Fine had been reasonable yet the Lords ought to have set a certain time and place when the same should be paid because it stands â—â—on the point of Forfeiture As if a man assures Lands to one and his Heirs upon condition to pay to the Bargainee and his Heirs 10 l. at such a place or that he and his heirs shall re-enter there because no time is limited the Bargainor ought to give notice to the Bargainee c. when he will tender the money and he cannot tender it when he pleaseth and with this agrees 19 Eliz. Dyer 244. So in the Case at the Bar the Copyholder is not bound to carry his Fine alwayes with him c. And though that the Rejoynder is that the Plaintift refused to pay the Fine so he might well do when the Request is not lawful or reasonable And he that is to pay a great Fine as 100 l. or more it is not reasonable that he carry it always with him And the Copyholder was not bound to do it because the Fine was incertain and arbitrable as was Resolved in Hulbarts Case in the 4th Part of my Reports among the Copy-hold Cases 2. It was Resolved That though the Fine be uncertain and arbitrable yet it ought to be secundum arbitrium boni viri and it ought to be reasonable because Excessus in re qualibet jure reprobatur communi for the Common-Law forbids any excessive Distress as appears 41 Ed. 3. 26. And this doth appear to be the Common-Law for the Statute of Articuli super Chartas extends onely for a grievous Distress taken for the Kings Debt See F. N. B. 147. a. and 27 Ass 51. 28 Ass 50. 11 H. 4. 2. and 8 H. 4. 16. c. And so if an excessive Amerciament be imposed in any Couâ—t-Baron or other Court not of Record the Party shall have Moderata mis ericordia And Magna Charta is but an Affirmance of the Common-Law in this Point See F. N. B. 75. And the Common-Law gives an Assize of Sovient Distress and multiplication of Distress found which is Excess And with this agrees 27 Ass 50 51. F. N. B. 178 b. And if Tenant in Dower hath Tenants at Will that are rich and makes them poor by excessive Tallages and Fines this is wast F. N. B. 61. b. 16 H. 3. Wast 135. and 16 H. 7. Vide also the Register Judicial fol. 25. B. Waste lyeth in Exulando Henricum Hermanum c. Villeynes Quorum quilibet tenet unum messuagium unam Virgat terrae in Villenagio in Villa praed c. By all which it appears the Common-Law forbids excessive oppressing of Villains c. So in the Case at Bar though the Fine is uncertain yet it ought to be reasonable and so it appears by the Custome alleadged by the Defendant See Hubbard's Case before in the 4th Part of my Reports And when reasonableness concerning a Fine is in question the same shall be determined by the Court in which the Action depend 21 H. 6. 30. 22 Ed. 4 27. and 50 29 H. 8. 32. c. 3. It was Resolved That the Fine in the Case at the Bar was unreasonable being for the admittance of a Copy-holder in Fee-simple upon a Surrender made for this is not like a voluntary Grant c. for there Arbitrio Domini res estimari debet But when the Lord is compellable to admit him to whose use the Surrender is And when Câ—stuy que use is admitted he shall be in by him who made the Surrender and the Lord is but an Instrument to present the same 4. It was Resolved That the Surjoinder is no more than what the Law saith And for the Causes aforesaid Judgment was given for the Plaintiff And Coke Chief Justice said in this Case That if the Court of Admiralty amerce the Defendant excessively at discretion as seems by 19 H. 6. 7. the same shall not bind the Party and be it excessive or not it shall be determined in the Court where the Action shall be brought And a Writ of Account against a Bayliff or Guardian Quod reddat â—i rationabilem compâ—tum c. for the Law requires Reason and no excuse or extremity in any thing Mich. 6 Jac. Regis in the Common-Pleas Porter and Rochester's Case This Term Lewis and Rochester who dwelt in Essex in the Diocess of London were sued for subtraction of Tythes growing in B. in the said County of Essex by Porter in the Court of the Arches of the B. of Canterbury in London And the Case was The Archbishop of Canterbury â—ath a peculiar Jurisdiction of 14 Parishes called a Deanry exempt from the Authority of the Bishop of London whereof the Parish of St. Mary de Arcubus is the chief And the Court is called the Arches because it is holden there And a great Question was moved If in the said Court of Arches holden in London he might cite any dwelling in Essex for substraction of Tythes growing in Essex or if he be prohibited by the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. which after Debate at Bar by Councel and also by Dr. Ferrard Dr. James and others in open Court and lastly by all the Justices of the Common-Pleas A Prohibition was granted to the Court of Arches And in this Case divers Points were Resolved by the Court. 1. That â—â—l Acts of Parliament made by the King Lords and Commons in Parliament are parcel of the Laws of England and therefore shall be expounded by the Judges of the Laws of England and not by the Civillians Cannonist although the Acts concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction And in 10 H. 7. the Bishop of London caused onâ— to be imprisoned because the Plaintiff said he ought not to pay his Tythes to his Curate And the imprisoned Party brought his Action of false Imprisonment against those that arrested him by the Bishops Command and there the Matter is well argued what words are within the Statute and what words are not So upon the same Statute was Resolved in 5 Ed. 4. in Keysar's Case in the Kings Bench which see in my Book of Presidents And so the Statutes of Articuli Cleri de Prohibitione regiâ De Circuâ— spâ—cte agitis of 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. c. have alwayes been expounded by the Judges of the Common-Law as was adjudged in Wood's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. So 21 H. 8. cap. 13. See 7 Eliz. Dyâ—r 233. 15 Eliz. Dyer 251. 14 Eliz. Dyer 312. 15 Eliz. Dyâ—r 327. 18 Eliz. Dyer 352 347. 22 Eliz. Dyer 377. 2. Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warbâ—â—ton Daniel and
Common-Law none can be burnt for Heresy but by Conviction at a Convocation Note The High Commission may punish Heresies and upon their Conviction a Writ de Haeretico cumburendo See 6 R. 2. by which the Commons disavowed their assent to the Act of the 5 R. 2. which was contrived by the Prelates in the Name of the Commons whereas they never assented Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Langdale's Case In Langdales Case this Term in a Prohibition to the High Commissioners two Points were moved 1. If a Feme Covert may sue for Alimony before the High-Commissioners 2. If the Court of Common Pleas may grant a Prohibition when there is no Plea pendant there This concerning the Jurisdiction of the Court was first debated and divers Objections were made against it 1. That this Court hath not Jurisdiction to hold Plea without an Original unless by Priviledge of an Attorney Officer or Clerk of the Court and unless it be in a special Case viz. when there is an Action there depending for the same Cause then it was agreed that a Prohibition ought to recite Quod cum tale Placitum pendet c. And it was said That F. N. B. 43. g. agrees with this But a man ought to have his Prohibition out of Chancery or the Kings Bench upon surmise that he is sued in Court Christian for a Temporal Cause and the 2 Ed. 4. 11. 6. was cited To this it was answered and Resolved by Coke chief Justice Warberton Daniell and Foster Justices That the Common Pleas may award a Prohibition though no Suit be there pendent for it is the principal Court of Common Law for Common Pleas Quia Communia Placita non sequantur Curiam nostram as it is Enacted by Magna Charta thirty times confirmed by Parliamâ—â—â— then if the Ecclesiastical Judges incroach upon the Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas there the Court shall Grant a Prohibition and that without Original Writ for divers Causes 1. Because no Original Writ issuing out of Chancery is retornable into the King Bench or Common Pleas but is directed to a Judge or Party or both and is not retornable And upon contempt of the Prohibition the Chancellor may award an Attachment retornable either in the Kings Bench or Common Pleas which in such case is but a Judicial Writ And if such Attachment be retornable in the Common Pleas c. the Plaintiff in the Declaration shall make mention of an Original in Chancery and of the contempt c. as appears in a notable President 2. There was great reason that no Original Writ of Prohibition shall be retornable for the Common-Law was a Prohibition in it self and incroachment upon it incurred a contempt and with this agrees our Books 9 H. 6. 56. And there 't is held That the Statute of the 45 Ed. 3. and the Common Law also was a Prohibition in it self and thus the Rule of the Book 19 H. 6. 54. so is it held in 8 R. 2. Title Attachment Sur Prohibition 15. Note By Clopton a Sergeant at the Common Pleas That if a Plea be held in Court-Christian which belongs to the Court of the King without a Prohibition in facto the Plaintiff shall have an Attachment upon a Prohibition Quod fuit concessum c. Register 77. Estrepement Praecipimus quod inhibeas c. F. N. B. 259. Register 112. A Consultation is as much an Original as a Prohibition And the Court hath granted a Consultation ergo Prohibitions Qui habet jurisdictionem absolvendi habet juris dictionem Ligandi There are several sorts of Prohibitions one sort with this word Probibemus vobis and Letters in nature thereof as Supersedeas And Injunction is a Prohibition and Prohibition of Wast out of Chancery c. Express Prohibition are in two manners the one founded upon a Suggestion the other upon Record Upon Suggestion where Plea is pendent and yet the Suggestion is the Foundation but it is founded upon Record where no Plea is pendent for Prohibitions founded upon Record Ne admittas ought to recite the Plea pendent So a Writ to the Bishop to admit a Clerk is a Judicial Latitat as Dyer defends it As to the pendency of a Plea or not pendency it is not material for divers causes 1. The pendency of the Plea may give a priviledge to the party but no Jurisdiction to the Court in a Collateral Suit between which there is great diversity 2. The Prohibition where Plea is pendent is no process Judicial upon Record for it is a Collateral Suit 3. If the Common-Pleas cannot grant a Prohibition without a Plea pendent then the Kings which onely holds Plea of Common-Pleas by second means cannot But inasmuch as the Common-Law is instead of an Original as hath been said both Courts may grant it 4. Infinite Presidents may be shewn of Prohibition out of the Common Pleas without recital of any Plea pendent And true it is That it ought to be if the Court hath not Jurisdiction to grant any without Plea-pendant every petty-Clerk of the Common-Pleas shall have by his Priviledge a Prohibition without Plea-pendent A fortiori the Common Law it self may prohibite any one 4 Ed. 4. 37. 37 H. 8. 4. 5. A President is in the 22 Ed. 4. where a Prohibition was granted for that the Plaintiff might have a Writ of false Judgment at the Common Law The Record and Report agree the words of the Record are 6. That Officers and Clerks as well in the Common-Pleas as in the Exchequer c. may have by Privileng of Court a Prohibition without Original a fortiori the Law it self shall have greater Priviledge than an Officer or Clerk and to enforce the party to bring an Action will be a means to multiply Suits to no end 4 Ed. 4. fol. 37. every Prohibition is as well at the Kings Suit as at the Parties 28 Ed. 3. 97. false Latin shall not abate nor excommunication in the Plaint is no Plea 15 Ed. 3. Title Corrody 4. Note Though the Original cause was in the Kings Bench for Corrody Excommunication is no Plea in disability of the Plaintiff Vide 21 H. 7. 71 Kelway 6. quare non admissit 4 Ed. 4. 37. for not delivery of a Libel in the Common Pleas he shall have a Prohibition by all the Justices So upon 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. See 38 H. 6. 14. 22. Ed. 6. 20. 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition 11. 32 H. 6. 34. An Attorney in the Palace assaulted and menaced the Court shall take a Bill and inquire of it 4 Ed. 4. 36 37. Statham Prohibition 3. Prohibition super articulos title Prohibition pl. 5. gives a Prohibition before Scil. coram Justiciaâ—iis nostris apud Westm Vide F. N. P. fol. 69. b. in a Writ of Pone Register indic coram Justicia iis nost is apud Westm is the Common Pleas F. N. B. 64. d. 38 Ed. 3. 14. Statute 2 Ed. 6. cap. 13. Hales Case in my Reports Many Prohibitions were granted in the
THE RESOLUTIONS Of the JVDGES upon the several STATUTES Of Bankrupts As also The like Resolutions Upon 13 Eliz. and 27 Eliz Touching Fraudulent CONVEYANCES By T. B. Esq LONDON Printed for T. Twyford and are to be sold by Hen. Twyford and other Booksellers 1670. Pasch 4. Jacobi Regis Ford and Sheldon's Case upon Information in the Exchequer for the King THomas Ford a known Recusant bâ—fore the 23 of Eliz. for money lent to Sheldon some before and some after the said 23 Eliz. took Recognizance in the Names of others and also a Rent-charge to them in Fee with a Clause of Redemption by Deed the Condition of the Recognizance being for performance of the Covenanss in the Deeds and afterward was made the Statute of the 28 Eliz. which was That as often as any Failer was made in the payment of 20 l. a Month that so often the Queen by Process out of the Exchequer might take and enjoy all the Goods and two Parts c. And after the said Act Ford lent the several Sums of Money and took the Securities as aforesaid amounting in all to 21000 l. which being to Ford's use were all forfeited Afterwards 41 Eliz. was Convict of Recusancy and did not pay the 20 l. a Month If the King should have the Bâ—nefit of these Recognizances and Securities was the Qâ—estion 1. Upon Debate it was objected by Ford's Councel That the Recognizances had not been Forfeited though they had been made in Ford's Name the Statute speaking onely of Goods which doth not include Debts As if the King grant all the Goods of J. S. coming to him by Attainder the Patentee shall not have Debts And a Penal Law shall not be extended by Equity Obj. 2. That three Recognizances are not within the Intention of the Act being Savers of the Realty and acknowledged to perform Covenants as to the Rent-charge Ob. 3. No Fraud was in the Case And then no Statute being in this Case the Common-Law gives no benefit to the King As if Cestuy que use had been Attaint of Treason the Use being but a Trust could not be forfeited to the King And it not a Use A multo fortiori a meer Trust Ob. 4. What Forfeiture accrues to the King in this Case must be by force of the words Goods in the Statute which cannot be Ford having no Goods but a meer Trust Also one Recognizance was taken in the Names of others before the Stature and therefore cannot be thought to defeat the King of a Forfeiture which was not then in use Resolved 1. By all the Barons and Popham Chief Justice of England and divers other Justices that Personal Actions are as well included within this Word Goods in an Act of Parliament as Goods in Possession But because by Law things in Action cannot be granted over therefore by General Grant without special words can never pass And where the Statute saith Shall take seize and enjoy all the Goods and two parts c. the King may well enjoy a Debt due to a Recusant and by Process out of the Exchequer Levy it and so take and seize refers to Goods and two Parts of Lands in Possession Resolved 2. That it was Originally for the Loan of Money and both the Recognizance and Annuity were to secure the said Money And Recognizances fotfeited are but Chattels Personal Resolved 3. There was Covin apparent for he being a Recusant always as aforesaid and so chargeable to the King his taking the Recognizances in the Name of others shall be Construed with an Intent to prevent the King of his Forfeiture And so shall all Recognizances taken in others Names after the said Act be presumed to be taken As to Ceâ—â—uy que use who neither hath Jus in Re nor Jus ad Rem true it is he cannot Forfeit but an Act done to defraud the King of his lawful Duty the King shall not be barred thereof per obliquum if the Act was made de directo And for this If a man outlawed buy Goods in the Names of others the King shall have them notwithstanding So if an Accountant to the King purchase Lands in others Names yet the King shall sâ—ze those Lands for Money due to him And this appears by Walter Cherton's Case Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Rot. 4. in Scaccario for Reâ— fallere non vult falli autem non potest See another President Trin. 24. Ed. 3. Pot. 11. Resolved 4. Noâ—resert Whether the Duty do accâ—ue to the King by the Common-Law or by the Statute And though one of the Recognizances was taken before the Statute of the 28 of Eliz. yet that was to his use And though Ford was not Convict till the 41 of Eliz. that is not material for he was subject to a Forfeiture before Pasch 4 Jac. In Chancery 27 Junii 29 Eliz. The Case between the Lord St. John of Bletso and the Dean of Gloucester The Lord St. John brought a Quare Impedit in the Common-Pleas against the Defendant for the Church of Penmark in the County of Glamorgan which Suit was staid by Aid prayer and the Record removed into the Chancery The Plaintiff moved for a Procedendo and upon Oyer of Cause before Sir Thomas Bromley Lord Chancellor in the presence of Sir Gilbert Gerrard Master of he Rolls and Shute and Windham Justices and Popham Attorney and Egerton Sollicitor of the Queen the Plaintifâ— shewed a Gift in Tail of the said Advowson made to his Anc stor in 18 R. 2. and a Verdict for the same in 12 H. 8. and a presentation by his Grandfather to the said Church of a Clerk that was admitted instituted inducted and had possession divers years with other matters to prove the Plaintiffs Tâ—tle yet for that the Defendant and those from whom he claimes had time out of mind possessed the said Parsonage as Impropriate And for that it will be a dangerous President to all Owners of Impropriations It was Resolved by the Court of Chancery by the advice of the Justices and Councel Learned by the Queen aforesaid That no Procedendo in loquela be granted Vide Ridley fol. 153 154. the beginning of Appropriations and Annuities to be discharged of Tythes Vide ibid. 155. That the Saxon Kings appropriated eight Churches to the Monastery of Croyland Trin. 37 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber Crimes and Smith The Abbot of Sulby held the Parsonage of Iubbenhâ—m in Leicestershire to his proper use which as impropriate came to H. 8. by the dissolution of Monasteries 31 H. 8. who in the 37th year of his Reign granted it in Fee-Farm under which Grant the Plaintiff claimed The Defendant obtained a Presentation of the Queen and to destroy the said Impropriation shewed the Original Instrument of it 22 Ed. 4. with Condition in it That a Vicaridge should be competently endowed which was alledged never to be done But for that the Rectory was reputed and taken to be appropriate and a Vicar presented admitted instituted and inducted as a Vicar
Ecclesiastical Judge that were in danger of Premunire before 1 Eliz. are now in case of Premunire after the said Act the said Acts of Premunire not being repealed by 1 Eliz. 1. 2. And as to first and second Objections it was answered That true it is The Crown of England hath as well Ecclesiastical as Temporal Jurisdiction annex'd to it as appears by the Resolution in Cawdryes Case from Age to Age. And though this was de jure yet where the Pope became so Potent he usurped upon the Kings Ecclesiastical Power in this Realm but this was meer Usurpation And therefore all the Kings of this Realm Totis viribus proinde for establishing of their Temporal Law by which they inherit their Crown and by which c. were alwayes jealous in any part or point it should be incroached upon And if the Ecclesiastical Law did usurp upon the Temporal it was severely punished and the Offender judged an Enemy to the King by the ancient Statutes and every one might have killed him before the Statute of 5 Eliz. And this is the Reason the Crown it self is directed descendable by the Common Law and Treason against the Crown is punished by this Law And therefore usurpation by an Ecclesiasticall Judge upon it is said to be contra Coronam et dignitatem Regis And all Prohibitions since 1 Eliz. do conclude contra Coronam et dignitatem Regiam for as 't was resolved by all the Justices Pasch 4 Jac. Regis est contra Coronam c. when any Ecclesiastical Judge doth usurpe upon the Temporal Law for the cause of the Subject is drawn ad aliud examen when his Cause is not ended by the Common Law whereto by Birth-right he is inheritable 3. As to the Third though the Court by force of High-Commission is the Court of the King yet their proceedings are Ecclesiastical And therefore if they usurpe upon the Temporal Law this is the same offence which was before the Act 10 Eliz. 4. As to the Fourth though it be a new Court yet the antient Statutes extend to it in this word Alibi and in H. 8. times several new Bishopricks were erected yet never any question but the old Acts of Premuri did extend to them But to answer all Objections at once whereas the Act 1 Eliz. repealed the Statute 1 2 P. M. cap. 8. yet there is an express Proviso in the said Act 1 Eliz. That it shall not extend to Repeal any Clause or Matter contained in the 1 et 2 P. M. which in any sort concerneth any matter or cause of Premunire but that all of that stand in force See the said two Acts and also 16 R. 2. Also the Act of 1 Eliz. revives the Act 25 H. 8. cap. 10. which makes a Premunire in a Dean and Chapter c. for not electing certifying or admitting a Bishop elected by all which it appears the said Act of 1 Eliz. never intended to take away the offence of Premunire But note in what Cases a Premunire lyes and in what not 1. In all Causes when the Cause originally belongs to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Court and Suit is prosecuted there as belonging to their Cognizance though in truth if rightly examined it ought to be determined â—t Common Law yet no Premunire lyes there but a Prohibition As if Tythes are severed from the nine parts and are carried away if the Parson sue for the Substraction of these Tythes in the Spiritual Court this is not in the case of Premunire Vide 10 H. 4. 2. agreeing with this Opinion So if a Parson sue for Tythes of surmising that they were Sylvae Caduae under the age of 20 years where in truth they were above yet a Prohibition lyeth and no Premunire 2. But though the Cause originally may appertain to the Cognizance of the Ecclesiastical Judge yet if he sue for it in the nature of a Suit which doth not belong to the Ecclesiastical Court but to the Common Law there a Premunire lyeth As in the former Case If the Parson after severing of Tythes will in any Ecclesiastical Court sue for carrying away his Tythes from the 9 parts which Action pertains to the Common Law In such case both the Actor and Judge incurr the danger of Premunire And so it was adjudged 17 H. 8. as Spillmâ—n Reports it One Turbâ—rvile sued a Premunire against a Parson that convened him into the Ecclesiastical Court and there libell'd against him for taking of Ty hes which were sever from the nine parts and the Parson was condemned to be out of the protection of the King to forfeit all his Lands Goods and Chattels and his Body to perpetual Imprisonment and damages to the Party So of a Mortuary delivered and re-taken if the Parson sue for this as for a Mortuary to him delivered he is in case of Premunire 10 H. 4. 2. So in the case put for tythe of Wood if it appear by the Libell that the Cognizance of the Case doth not belong to Court Christian the Premunire lyes as you may see in the Book of Entries tit Dismes fol. 221. But the tit Prohibition fol. 449. Divisione Dismes Ps 2 3 4 5 6. If the suit be pro Sylva caedua c. and the Suit be framed so as the Cognizance belongs to Court Christian though the truth be otherwise no Premunire but a Prohibition lyes 3. When the cause originally belongs to the Cognizance of the Common Law and not to the Ecclesiastical Court there though they Libel for it according to the course of the Ecclesiastical Law yet the Premunire lyeth because that this draws the cause which is determinable at Common Law ad aliud examen viz. to be decided by the Civil Law and so deprives the Subject of the Common Law his Birth-right and wiâ—h this agrees the Book of Entries tit Premunire fol. 229. b. 430. a. So that if the Original cause be Temporal though that they proceed by Citation Libel c. in Ecclesiastical manner yet this is in danger of Premunire And the reason of this is because he endeavours to draw Cognitionem quae ad Curiam domini Regis pertinet ad aliud examen that is that the Debt the Cognizance whereof belongs to the Court of the King he intends by the Original Suit to draw it to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Court And note In the Indictment of Premunire against Cardinal Woolsâ—y Mich. 21 H. 8. 14. it is said Quod Praedictus Cardinalis intend finaliter antiquissimas leges Angliae penitus subvertere et enervare univer sumque hoc Regnum Angliae et ejusdem Angliae populum legibus imperialibus vuilgo dict legibus Civilibus et â—orum legum Canonibus isperpetuum subjurare c. And this included within these words Ad aliud examen trahere viz. to decide that by the Civil Law which is determinable by the Common Law And upon this was a notable Case in Hill an 25 H. 8. of
Sentence given by Commissioners of the Queen in a Cause Ecclesiasticall under the Great Seal That the said Sentence was unjust and wicked and that he thought the Delegates had done against their Conscience and what offence this was was referred to divers Judges to consider by whom it was Resolved That this Offence was a contempâ— as well against the Queen as to the Judges and punishable by the Common-Law by Fine and Imprisonment 5. Resolved When any Libell in Ecclesiastical Court contains many Articles if any of them do not belong to Court-Christian a Prohibition may be generally granted and upon motion Consultation may be made as to things which belong to Spiritual Jurisdiction And for these Reasons it was Resolved by all That the Prohibition in the case at Bar was well granted which in truth was granted by Fenner and Crooke Justices in the Vacation Note these general Rules concerning Prohibitions Quaesparsim inveniantur in libris nostris Non debet dici tendere in praejudicinm Ecclesiasticae libertatis quod rege et repub necessarium videtur Artic. Cleri c. 8. 2. Non est juri consonum quod quis super iis quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet in Curia Christianitatis trahetur in placitum Entries 444. 447. 3. Episcopus teneat placitum in Curia Christianitatis de iis quae mere sunt Spiritualia Circumspâ—cte agatis c. 4. Prohibeatur de caetero Hospitalariis et Templariis ne de caetero trahunt aliquem in placâ—tum coram conservatoribus privilegiorum de aliquare cujus cognitio ad Forum spectat Regium West 2. cap. 43. 5. Non concedantur citationes priusquam exprimatur super quare fieri debet citatio Ibidem 6. Resolved That this special Consultation being only of Heresy Schisme and erroneous Opinions c. that if they convict Fuller and if he recant the same c. that he shall never be punished by Ecclesiastical Law After the Consultation granted the Commissioners proceeded and convicted Fuller of Schisme and erroneous Opinions and imprisoned and fined him 200 l. And after in the same Term Fuller moved the Court of Kings Bench to have a Habeas Corpus et ei conceditur upon which Writ the Goaler did return the cause of his detention Mich. 5 Jac. Regis The Case of First-Fruits and Tenths Note Annates Primitiae and First-Fruits are all one It was the value of every Spiritual Livâ—ng by the year which the Pope claiming the disposition of all Ecclesiastical Livings reserved And those and Impropriations began about the time that Polidore Virgil lib. 8. cap 2. saith Vide Concilium Viennense quod Clemens quintus indixit pro annatibus These First-Fruits were given to the Crown 26 H. 8. cap. 3. Note Hill 34 Ed. 1. An. 1307. At a Parliament held at Carlisle great Complaint was made of Oppressions of Churches c. by William Testa called Mala Testa and Legate of the Pope in which Parliament the King with his Barons assent denied payment of First-Fruits And to this effect he writ to the Pope whereupon the Pope relinquished his Demand and the First-Fruits for Two years were by that Parliament given to the King Decimae id est Tenths of Spiritualties were perpetual and paid to the Pope till Pope Urban gave them to R. 2. to aid him against Charles King of France and others who supported Clement the 7th against him 5 H. 3. By the Popes Bulls all Tenths were paid to H. 3. for years These were given to the King 26 H. 8. cap. 6. Vide Dambert de prist Anglor c. fol. 128. cap. 10. et ibidem inter leges Juae fol. 78. cap. 4. Sir Anthony Roper's Case In the Case of Sir Anthony Roper drawn before the High Commissioners at the Suit of one Bullbrook Vicar of Bently for a Pension out of a Rectory Impropriate whereof Sir Anthony was seized in Fee And the High-Commissioners sentenced the said Sir Anthony to pay it which he refused whereupon they committed him to Prison who appeared in Court this Term by Habeas Corpus upon the return of which Writ the matter did appear And it was well debated by the Justices and Resolved 1. That the said Commissioners had not Authority in the said Case for when the Acts of the 27 H. 8. and 31 H. 8. of Monasteries had made Parsonages Impropriate c. although that Pensions were saved yet by the Preamble of the Act 34 H. 8. cap. 16. those to whom the Pensions appertain had not remedy for the said Pensions c. And if the King covenanted to discharge the Patentee c. of Pensions the Suit shall be made for the same in the Court of Augmentations and not else-where And if High-Commissioners will determine of Pensions they must do it by that Act 34 H. 8. which expresly gives it to Ordinaries and their Officials the High-Commissioners Power being granted long after by the Act 1 Eliz. But it was Objectâ—d That that Act of 1 Eliz. gave the Queen and her Successors Power to assign Commissioners c. And it was said That such Spiritual Jurisdiction which the Bishop should have is transferred to the High Commissioners But it was unanimously resolved by Coke Walmesly Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices That the Act 1 Eliz. extends not to this Case for divers Causes 1. Because the Act of the 1 Eliz. doth not take away nor alter any Act of Parliament but those onely which are expresly named therein And it was Râ—solved That the High-Commissioners cannot hold Plea for the double value of Tythes carried away before severance 2. Because the words in the 1 Eliz. are which by any manner of Spiritual Jurisdiction can or lawfully may be reformed And it appears That these words extend to Crime only and not to Cases of Interest betwixt Party and Party 3. Because this Jurisdiction was given to the Bishops by Act of Parliament viz. 34 H. 8. which is more Temporal than Spiritual as all of Parliament are 4. It was not the intent of the Act 1 Eliz. which revived the Statute 23 H. 8. cap. 9. That the High-Commissioners for private Causes shall send for Subjects out of any part of the Realm and so in effect confound the jurisdiction of the Ordinary an Officer so necessary that the Kings Courts cannot be without him in divers Cases 5. If that Act 1 Eliz. had extended to give High-Commissioners power to determine meum et tuum as Pensions Tythes c. the Party thereby also should have benefit to appeal otherwise this should be dissolve the Court of the Ordinary which is so antient and necessary in many Cases that without it Justice cannot be administred 6. The High-Commissioners cannot extend themselves but only to Crime Mich. 5 Jac. Regis Rot. 2254. Praecept fuit Guardiano prison Domini Regis de Flecte quod haberet qpud â—estm immediate c. Coâ—pus Anthonii Roper Mil. inprison praed sub custodia sua detent quocunque nominâ— cens reretur una cum
Judgment requires long Study and Experience With which his Majesty was greatly Offended and said Then he should be under the Law which was Treason to be said To which I said that Bracton saith Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub Deo et Iege Mich. 8 Jacob. Regis Robert's Case In this Term in the Case of one Roberts a Prohibition had been granted in a Case upon Substraction of Tythes upon surmise that the Plaintiff being Defendant in the Spiritual Court had but one Witness there to prove his Demise to which the Court said That singugaris Testis is not allowable And upon sight of a Prohibition in the same Case in Hill 3 Eliz. in Banâ—o Regis It was Resolved by Coke chief Justice Et totam Curiam in Communi Banco that Consultation should be granted for divers Reasons 1. It appears by the Register fol. 5. that it is put for a Rule Quod non est consonum rationi quod cognitio accessorii in Curia Christianitatis impediatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forum Ecclesiasticum â—â—scitur pertinere and with this agrâ—es 1 R. 3. 4. 2. If such a surmise shall be allowed then in every Case for meer delay such a surmise may be made And when the spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction of the principal Cause they determine the accessory But it was objected That if A. claiming a Lease by B. of a Rectory Libels for substraction of Tythes and the Defendant pleads a former Lease made by B. and C. and the Defendant hath but one Witness in the Case to prove the former Lease if no Prohibition shall be granted the Defendant shall be charged And if C. sue him upon the Statute 2 Ed. 6. the testimony of one only shall be then sufficient and so he shall he twice charged To which it was answered That first the fault was the Defendants that he would not set forth his Tythes and then he shall be charged whosoever takes them But in such the Ecclesiastical Court will upon one good Witness and any concurrent vâ—hement presumption allow of such a proof But if a question arise upon construction of a Statute and the Ecclesiastical Court will Judge of it against the Rule of Law there upon special surmise of it a Prohibition lies And Coke chief Justice cited a notable Judgment Pasch 35 Eliz. in Banke le Roy. Fuller brought a Prohibition against Clements and Wiskard and Fuller counted that himself was Owner of the Rectory of Longham in the County of Norfolk and libelled against Clements before the Bishop of Norwiches Official for substraction of Tythes scil Wheat pendent which Suit Wiskard intervening pro intercesse suo made there allegations against Fuller 1. That the said Rectory was impropriate to the Monastery of Windling and by dissolution thereof came to H. 8. and conveyed it by mean Discent to Queen Elizab. who by Letters Patents granted it to Min and Hall who enfeofâ—ed Bozome who let it to Wiskard for four years and upon proof of his allegations in fine Sentence was given against Fullâ—r and several Costs given to Clements and Wiskard Fuller appeals to the Court of the Arches and there Claims the said Rectory from Halls being seized of it who by his Deed granted the same to Sir Edward Clere before Bozomes Feoffment and that Sir Edward did enfeoff Fuller and offered to prove the Deed made to Sir Edward by one sole Witness which the Ecclesiastical Court would not allow of And Fuller further said That though he had alledged these matters were determinable at Common Law yet they gave Sentence The Defendants to have a Consultation pleaded That Fuller proved the delivery of the Deed by Clere and Mouse but could not prove Livery and Seisin according to the Deed and that therefore Sentence was given without that that the Judges would not admit the proof without other Witnesses upon this Fuller demurred and his Council objected 1. That Wiskard pleads matter determinable meerly at Common Law viz Letters Patents c. and on the other part Fuller Claims an Estate in the Rectory by conveyance at Common Law And the Question in the Court Ecclesiastical being Who hath the best Estate in the Rectory this ought to be tryed by the Common Law for this is the Birth-right of the Subject 2. It was Objected That all matters in Law ought to be determined by the Judges of the Law And in this Case matters of Law arising as if a Rectory be granted by Deed with all Tythes c. and no Livery is made If the Tythes may pass with any Livery this is a question to be decided by the Judges of the Common Law Quod quisque novit in hoc se exerceat 3. It was objected That Wiskard was a meer stranger to the Suit and all his Allegation is Temporal and for that it is a stronger Case to maintain a Prohibition 4. It was Objected That Fuller had but one Witness to prove the delivery of the Deed and in the Ecclesiasticall Law Unus Testis et nullus Testis for which causes it was prayed the Prohibition might stand To which it was answered by Sir Christopher Wray chief Justice Et per totam Curiam to the first Objection That 1. Where the original belongs to the Ecclesiastical Court the determination of all that depends on it belongs to the same Court though the matter be tryable at Law but where the Original matter belongs to the Common Law and there commenced and issue taken upon matter tryable by the Ecclesiastical Law there the Judges of our Law shall write to the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Court to try it and to certify As in action Ancestral if Bastardy be pleaded in the Demandant and upon this Issue is joyned this shall be tryed by the Bishop and his Certificate shall bind So in a Quare Impedit But though such issues are in their nature Tryable by the Law Ecclesiastical yet if the Case was such that the Ecclesiastical Court could not try it then that Justice be not wantâ—ng such Ecclesiastical matter shall be tryed by the Common Law as 4 Ed. 3. 26. But against this was objected the Statute de Articulis Cleri cap. 13. Quod de Idoneitate personâ— persoâ—atae ad beneficium Ecclesiasticum pertineat examinatio ad Judicom Ecclesiasticum upon which it was concluded That the Tryall de idomeitate personae in all Cases belong to Court-Christian To which it was answered and resolved That the Tryal of ability belongs to them but this Tryal must be by examination of the Party 〈◊〉 39 Ed 3. 2. That Earl of Arundâ—ll'â— Case and 4 Ed. 3. 25. 16 Eliz. Dyer 327. So if Bastardy be alledgâ—d in one who is dead Vide 17 Ed. 3. 5. where Bastardy is alledged in the Tenant and one who is a stranger to the Writ who are Sâ—sters Vide 32 Ed. 3. Trial 59. where the Tenant doth alledge Bastardy in himself and the Demandant doth aver him
same Term the said Judges of the Kings Bench Barons of the Exchequer and Justice Fenner and Yelverton who were omitted before and We the Justices of the Common-Bench were commanded to attend the Council And being all assembled We of the Common-Pleas were commanded to retire and then the King demanded their Opinions in certain Points touching the High-Commission wherein they unanimously agreeing We viz. Coke Walmesly Warberton and Foster were called before the King Prince and Council where the King declared That hy the Advice of his Council and the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons he will reform the High-Commission in divers Points which after he will have to be obeyed in all Points Whereupon I said to the King That it was grievous to Us his Majesties Justices of the Bench to be severed from our Brethren but more grievous that they differed from us in Opinion without hearing one another especially since in what we have done in Sir VVilliam Chancys Case aud others the like concerning the Power of the High-Commissioners was done judicially in open Court upon argument at the Bar and Bench. And further I said to the King that when we the Justices of the Common-Pleas see the Commission newly reformed We will as to that which is of Right seek to satisfie the Kings expectation and so We departed c. Trin. 9 Jac. Regis Stockdale's Case in the Court of VVards The King by Letters Patents dated 9. April the ninth year of his Reign did Grant to VVilliam Stockdale in these words Such and so many of the Debts Duties Arrearages and Sums of Money being of Record in our Court of Exchequer Court of Wards Dutchy-Court or within any Court or Courts c. in any year or several years from the last year of the Reign of H. 8. to the 13th year of Our Dear Sister as shall amount to the sum of 1000 l. To have takâ— levy c. the said Debts c. to the said VVilliam Stockdale his Executors c. And in this Case divers Points were resolved 1. That the said Grant of the King is void for â—he incertainty for thereby no Debt in certain can pass As if the King have an 100 Acres of Land in D. and he Grants to a Man 20 Acres of the Lands in D. without describing them by the Rent Occupation or Name c. this Grant is void 2. When the Patentee Claims by force of this word Arreragia It was resolved clearly That he shall not have Arrearages of Rents Reliefs and mean Rates of Lands c. in the Court of Wards c. if the Patent go not further But the Proviso in the end of the Patent viz. Provided that the said VVilliam Stockdale shall take no benefit by any means of Arrearages of any Rents c. untill Sir Patrick Murrey and others be paid the sum of 1000 l. c. hath well explained what Arrearages the King intended But clearly mean Rates are not within the words for they are the Profits of Demesne Land Trin. 9 Jacobi Regis Divers men playing at Bowles at great Marlow in Kent two of them fell out and a third man who had not any quarrel in revenge of his Friend struck the other with a Bowl of which he dyed This was held Manslaughter because it happened upon a suddain motion In the same Term a special Verdict divers years past found in the County of Hertford which was That two Boyes fighting together one was seratched in the Face and bled very much at the Nose and so he run three quarters of a Mile to his Father who seeing his Son so abused he took a Cudgel and run to the place where the other Boy was and stroke him upon the Head upon which he dyed And this was held but Man-slaughter for the Passion of the Father was continued and no time to judge it in Law Malice prepense And this Case was moved ad mensam c. Mich. 9 Jac. Regis Memorandum upon Thursday in this Term a High Commission in Causes Ecclesiastical was published in the Archbishops great Chamber at Lambeth in which I with the Chief Justice Chief Baron Justice VVilliams Justice Crooke Baron Altham and Baron Bromly were named Commâ—ssioners among all the Lord of the Council divers Bishops Attorney and Sollicitor and divers Deans and Doctors in the Cannon and Civil Laws And I was commanded to sit by force of the said Commission which I refused for three Causes 1. Because neither I nor any of my Brethren of the Common-Pleas were acquainted with it 2. Because I did not know what was contained in the new Commission and no Judge can execute any Commission with a good Conscience without knowledg for Tantum sibi est permissum quantum est Commissum 3. That there was not any necessity of my sitting who understood nothing of it so long as the other Judges whose advise had been had in this new Commission were there 4. That I have endeavoured to inform my self of it by a Copy from the Rolls but it was not enrolled 5. None can sit by force of any Commission till he hath taken the Oath of Supremacy according to 1 Eliz. and if I may hear the Commission read and have a Copy to advise upon I will either sit or shew cause to the contrary The Lord Treasurer perswaded me to siâ— but I utterly refused it and the rest seemed to incline Then the Commission was openly read containing divers Points against the Laws and Statutes of England At hearing of which all the Judges rejoyced they sate not by it Then the Archbishop made an Oration during all which as the reading of the Commission I stood and would not sit and so by my Example did the rest of the Judges And so the Archbishop appointed the great Chamber at Lambeth in Winter and the Hall in Summer and every Thursday in the Term at two a clock Afnoon and in the Forenoon one Sermon Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis In this Term the Issue in an Information upon the 〈◊〉 2 H. 6. 15. was tryed at the Bar and upon Evidencâ— upon the words of the Statute which are That evâ—â—y person that sets or fastens in the Thames any Nets or Enâ—iâ—â—s called Trincks or any other Nâ—ts to any â—â—sts c. to stand continually day and night forfeits to â—he King 100 s. for every time c. And the Defendants having set and fastned Nets called Trincks in the Thames c. to Boats day and night as long as the Tide served and nor continually The Question was If this was within the Statute and it was clearly Resolved That it was within the Statute for the Nets called Trinks cannot stand longer than the Tyde serve and for this the word continually shall be taken for so long as they may stand to take Fish for lex non intendit aliquid impossibile Mich. 9 Jacob. Regis Shulters Case in the Star-Chamber The Case was such John Shulter of Wisbich of the age of 115 years
had Issue John his eldest Son and others viz. Christopher Richard c. and being seized of Land in Fee oâ— 100 Marks per annum value his eldest Son being dead and his Grandchild John withâ—n age he gave direction for a Lease to be made of a Faâ—m called Roushal to Christopher during the minority of his Grand-child rendring the antient Rent with power of Revocation and of Lands in Yatesbury to Richard in the same manner and the same time Chrâ—stopher and Richard by the Covin of one Woodruff a Serivener 25 Eliz. drew two Leases to Christopher and Richard for 51 years rendring 4 d. per annum and without any power of Revocation John Shulter the Grandfather being blind with age and Woodruff telling him they were according to his direction And thereupon John Shulter thâ— Grandfather sealed and delivered them And it was resolved by the Lord Ellesmere Chancellor and two Chief Justies That the said Indentures could not bind the said John Shulter because he was blind and the effect was declared to him other than in truth it was Iâ— fully agreed with Mansers Case in the second part of my Reports fol. 4. Mich. 9 Jacobi Regis Sir Anthony Ashley's Case The Case was this Sir James Creyton had bought a pretended Right of and in the Mannor of â—yddy and Millisent and divers oâ—her Lands of which Sir Anthony had long possession Upon which divers Motions were made concerning Fines acknowledged to be staid c. in the Common-Bench and Sir James not prevailing in it entred into a wicked Conspiracy with several other Defendants in the Cause to accuse the said Sir Anthony of some Capital Crimes whereby he should forfeit all his Lands Goods and Chattels which they should share amongst them and in the end Henry Smith formerly a Servant to Sir Anthony was suborned to accuse the said Sir Anthony of the Muâ—ther of William Rice late Husband of Mary Rice one of the Defendants which William was dead 18 years before and Smith was to have 500 l. for his pains to have a place procured him in the Kings Guard in Ordinary a Proteâ—tion also from the King against his Creditors and a General Pardon Of all which Smith would have assurance before he would make any Accusation of the said Sir Anthony Whereupon Articles in Writing were drawn ingrossed and sealed between Sir James Creyton of the one part and John Cantrel Servant to Hunnings by Smith's Consent and to his use on the other part By which Sir Jaâ—es Covenanted that the said Cantrel and his Heirs after the Conviction and Attainder of Sir Anthony shall have a sixth part of his Mannors c. In consideration whereof Cantrel Covenanted that he should procure Witnesses to Convict the Plaintiff of Murther or other Capital Crimes c. Which Articles were sealed 16 of Feb. 7 Jac. And for the performance of the said Articles Sir James gave Bond of 8000 l. to Cantrel Within two dayes after Smith counterfeits himself sick and then pretending to disburthen his Conscience reveales the said Murther and accused himself for poysoning the said William Rice by the said Sir Anthonies Command so that he himself was Principal Upon this Sir James procures Mary Rice the Widow of the said William Rice to prefer a Petition to the King importing the Accusation aforesaid Which Petition the King referred to the Chief Justice of the Kings-Bench who after full Examination certified the King that he found a false Conspiracy to indict Sir Anthony without any just ground and certified also the effect of the Articles Upon which the King by Advice of the Privy-Councel thought the matter fit to be sentenced in the Star-Chamber Which in the same Term upon ordinary proceeding was heard by six dayes And it was objected by the Defendants Councel That the Bill upon the said Conspiracy did not lye and that it would be dangerous to maintain it for it will deter men to prosecute against great Offenders whereby they will pass unpunished And by the Law Conspiracy lyes where a man is indicted and legitimo modo acquietus but here he was never indicted c. But to this it was Answered and Resolved by the Lord Chancellor the two Chief Justices and all the Court That in this Case the Bill was maintainable though the Party accused was not indicted and acquitted before as it was Resolved in this Court Hill 8. Jac. in Poulter's Case Besides be Sir Anthony guilty or no the Defendants are punishable for promising Bribes and Rewards to Smith to accuse the Plaintiff and the Articles to share Sir Aâ—thonies Estate after Attainder And there is a great Indignity offered to the King in assuming to Covenant that the King shall protect or pardon or that any man's Estate may be shared before Attainder And it appeared by many Witnesses that William Rice dyed not of any poysoning but of a horrible Disease got by his dissolute life which with Reverence cannot be spoken And in this Case it was Resolved That if Felony be done and one hath suspition upon probable matter that another is guilty of it he may arrest the party so suspected to bring him to Justice But in this Case three things are to be observed 1. That a Felony be done 2. That he that doth arrest hath suspition upon probable cause 3. That he himself who hath the suspition arrest the party Resolved also That if Felony be done and common fame and noise is that one hath committed it this is good cause for him that knowes of it to arrest the party and with this agrees the Book 2 H. 5. 15 16. 15 H. 7. 5. 20 H. 7. 12. 21 H. 7. 28. 7 Ed. 4. 20. 8 Ed. 4. 27. 11 Ed. 4. 4. 6. 17 Ed. 4. 5. 6. 20 Ed. 4 6. B. 7 H. 4. 25. 27 H. 8. 23. 26 H. 8 9. 7 Eliz. Dy. 226. Hill 9 Jac. Regis In this Term the Attorney and Sollicitor consulted with me if at this day upon Conviction of an Heretick before the Ordinary the Writ de Haeretico combunendo lyeth and it seems to be clear that it doth not for the Reasons and Authorities that I have reported Trin. 9 Jacob before But after they consulting with Fleming Chief Justice Tanfield Chief Baron and Williams and Crook And they upon the Report of Dr. Cosins mentioned in my said Report and some Prâ—sidents in Queen Elizabeth's time they certified the King that the said Writ lyeth but that the most sure way was to convict the Heretick before the High Commissioners Pasch 10 Jac. Regis The Lord Vaux his Case In this Term the Lord Vaux was indicted of a Premunire in the Kings-Bench upon the New Statute for refusing the Oath of Allegeance upon his Arraignment he prayed he might be tryed per Pares But iâ— was Resolved That he shall not for that Magna Charta cap. 29. Nec super cum ibimus nec super eum mittemus nisi per legale judicium parium suorum is onely to be
holden That if one were to sit in the Chancel and hath there a place his Carpet Livery and Cushion the Parson cannot claim them as Oblations for that they were hanged there in honour of the Deceased the same Reason of a Coat-Armour c. And the Chief Justice said the Lady might have a good Action during her Life in the Case aforesaid because she caused the things to he set up there and after her death the Heir shall have his Action they being in the nature of Hire-looms which belong to the Heir And with this agrees the Laws of other Nations Bartho Cassanâ—us sol 13. Coâ—cl 29. Actioâ— dat si aliquis arma in aliquo loco posita deleat aut abrasit c. and in 21 Ed. 3. 48. in the Bishop of Carlisle's Case Note That in Easter Term 10 Jacob. it was Resolved in the Star-Chamber in the Case between Hussâ—y and Katharine Leyton that if a man have a house in any Parish and that he and all those whose Estate he hath have used to have a certain Pew in the Church that if the Ordinary will displace him he shall have a Prohibition but where there is no such Prescription the Ordinary shall dispose of common and vulgar Seats Earl of Shrewes buryes Case Sir Humphry Winch Sir James Ley Sir Anthony St. Leger and Sir James Hullesâ—on certified the Lords of the Councel by Command from them by Letters dated 28. Martii 1612. of the Claim of Gilbert Earl of Shrewesbury to the Earldome of Waterford and Barony of Dungarvan in Ireland as followeth King Henry the Sixth by Letters-Patents in the 20th year of his Reign did Grant to his Cosin John Earl of Shrewsbury in consideration of his Loyal Services in the City and County of Waterford pro se c. ipsum in Comitem Waterford una cum stilo et titulo ac nomine ac honore eisdem debitis ordinamus creamus habendum to the said Earl and his Heirs-males of his Body and further did Grant the Castles Lordships c. of Dungarvan to the said Earl and the Heirs-males of his Body To hold c. of the King and his Heirs by Homage and Fealty and by the Service of being his Majesties Seneschal in Ireland After in the Parliament called Des Absentees holden at Dublin in Ireland 10. Maii 28 H. 8. It was enacted by reason of the long absence of George Earl of Shrewesbury out of the said Realm That the King his Heirs c. shall enjoy in right of his Crown of England all Honors Mannors Castles c. and all and singular possessions c. as well Spiritual as Temporal which the said George Earl of Shrewesbury and VVaterford or any other Persons had to his Use c. King Henry the 8th by his Letters Patents dated 29th of his Reign reciting the said Statute Nos praemissa Considerantes c. did Grant to the said Earl and his Heirs the Abbey of Rufford with the Lands thereunto c. in the County of Nottingham and the Lordship of Rotheram in the County of York the Abbeys of Chestersteld Shirbrook and Glossaâ—dale in Derbyshire with divers other Lands c. to be holden in Capite And the Questions were as followeth 1. Whether by the long absence of the Earl of Shrewsbury out of Ireland the Title of the Honor be lost and forfeited he being a Peer of both Realms and refiding here in England 2. Whether by the Act Des absentâ—es 28 H. 8. the Title of Dignity of Earl of VVaterford be taken from the said Earl as well as the Land c. Afterwards by other Letters Patents dated 27th of Sept. 1612. the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron were required to consider of the Case and to certifie their Opinions which Case being argued by Councel learned in the Law in behalf the said Earl and they having taken great advisement It was unanimously Resolved by them all as followeth 1. As to the fiâ—st Resolved That since it does not appear what defence was requisite and that the Consideration Executory was not found by Office to be broken in that Point the said Earl of Shrewsbury notwithstanding does remain Earl of Waterford 2. As to the second It was Resolved That the said Act 28 H. 8. Des Absenteâ—s does not onely take away the Possessions given him at his Creation but also the Dignity it self for though one may have a Dignity without Possession yet is it very inconvenient that Dignity should be cloathed with Poverty and so it was resolved in the Lord Ogles Case in Edw. 6. Reign as the Baron of Burleigh 35 Elâ—z did report The cause of Degradation of George Nevil Duke of Bedford is worth observation which was done by Act of Parliament 16 June 17 Ed. 4. which Act reciting the making the said George Duke sets forth the cause of his Degradation in these words And for so much as it is openly known that the said George hath not or by Inheritance may have any livelyhood to support the said Name Estate and Dignity c. Therefore the King by Advice of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons c. Enacteth c. That from henceforth the same Creation of the said Duke and all Names of Dignity given to the said George or to John Nevil his Father be void and of none effect Wherein are to be observed 1. That though the Duke had not Possessions to maintain his Dignity yet it could not be taken from him but by Act of Parliament 2. Great Inconveniencies follow where there is great State and Dignity and no means to maintain it 3. It is good reason to take away such Dignity by Act of Parliament and then the Act shall be expounded to take away such Inconvenience And though the Earl of Shrewsbury be of great Honour Vertue and Possessions in England yet it was not the Intention of the Act to continue him Earl in Ireland when his Possessions there were taken away And where it was objected that the general words Honours and Hereditaments are explained and qualified by the said Relative subsequent which the said George or any to his use hath Now in regard no man can be seized of the said Digniâ—y therefore the Act doth not extend to it 'T is answered that is to be understood Reddendo singula singulis and these words which the said G. E. hath are sufficient to pass the Dignity and with this agrees all the Judges Opinions in England in Nevils Case upon the like in the Statute 28 H. 8. in 7th Part of my Reports sol 33 and 34. Hill 2 Jacob. Regis Jurisdiction of the Court of Common-Pleas In the last Term by the King's Commands the Justices of the Kings Bench and Barons of the Exchequer were assembled before the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere at York-house to deliver their Opinion Whether there was any Authority in our Books that the Justices of the Common-Bench may grant Prohibitions or whether every Plea ought to be pending
Helenam ideo ipsi c. Out of which Record these things are to be observed 1. Though it is Enacted by the Stat. West 2. cap. 21. That in this Case Justiciarii c. puniant appellatorem per prisonam unius Anni c. so that they were not Bailable yet quia eadem Helena praegnans fuit in periculo mortis she was let to Bayl to have her Body 15 Mich. ad satisfaciendum praedicto Laurentio et aliis c. And the Reason of this is because the Common-Law requires in every Case conveniency and it is inconvenient a Woman with Child should remain in Common-Gaol And the Judges of the Common-Law ought to know what the Moral Poet spoke Redâ—ere personae sit convenientia cuique and agrees with Advice of Bracton lib. 2. cap. 2. 2. That the Defendants recover their Damages either wholly against the Principle or wholly against the Abettors and with this agrees Ed. 4. 3. 3. Though the Statute saith Restituant Appellatores damna c. yet the Damages shall be singulatim assessed for as the Defamation of one may be greater than another so the Damages of one may be greater than another 4. Though the Appellor be not sufficient to pay yet his body shall be taken ad satisfaciendum Quia qui non habet in aere luat in corpore 5. Though the Jurors in the Appeal have found the Defendants Abettors yet insomuch as they are strangers to the Original they shal not be concluded Quia res inter alios actae alteri nocere non debent Vide the Book of Entries Title Appeal Divisione Damages 1 2. Vide Placita coram rege apud Ebor. in Crast Sancti Trin. 7 Ed. 3. 44. Divisione Indictments are very well worth observing Duresse per Gaoler See there divers sorts of Presentments as of Wollingover John Alnner Thomas Ballivus de Flaxwel Laughton Thomas de Mandon Ballivus de Boby of Grafton Thomas Carleton Under-Sheriff of the County of Lincoln and Hugo de Baxter c. False Affidavits In an Action suâ—le case it was Resolved per totam Curiam That iâ— a Sumner return one certified upon his Oath in Court-Christian where in truth he was not and thereon he is pronounced contumax and so becometh excommunicate he shall have his Action sur le case for here is damaum et injuria And it was Resolved That Perjury by which Damages do accrew may be punished as a Misuemeanour at the Suit of the King and also the Party may have his Action upon the Case for Perjury may not be committed with Impunity And for that Reason If Jurors themselves use Perjury an Attaint â—yes by the Common-Law as appears by Glanvil lib. 2. cap. 29. 15 H. 8. Title Attaint 75. 6 H. 3. ibid. 73 75. and in the time of Ed. 1. â—ttaint 70. West 1 cap. 38. Vide F. N. B. 109 Vid. 27 H. 6. 25. In like manner it was agreed That if one make a false Affidavit by which the Party is Arrested with Process of Contempt he may have an Actioâ— sur le case and recover Damage And though the Court-Christian may punish pro salute animae yet they cannot award Damages to he party And though the matter be meerly Ecclesiastical yet if the Party grieved hath Damages either by wrongful Proceedings of the Judge or Mâ—sfeasans or Nonfeasans or falsity of any Minister c. the Party grieved may have an Action sur le câ—se and recover Damages Doctor and Stud. 118 119. Action sur le Case lyes against the Ordinary for a wrongful Excommunication touching any thing out of his Jurisdiction c. So in Fitz. 47 H. 6. 8. If an Arch-Deacon refuse to induct the Clerk c. he shall have Action sur le case Which was affirmed for good Law by all the Court with which agrees 26 H. 8. 3. a. If a man proceed against a Prohibition the Party may have an Action upon the Case against him for prosecuting in Court-Christian Vid. Trin. 20 Ed. 3. Rot. 46. in the Treasury Richard Tresil's Case So the like Pasch 13 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. Philip de Harâ—eshals Case Hill 32 Ed. 3. Rot. 78. and Trin. 37 Ed. 1. and Mich. 29 Ed. 3. Rot. 19. similiter and divers other Records you may have See in my Book of Presidents Pasch 14 Jac. Regis An Habeas Corpus to the Marshal of the Admiralty granted in Hillary Term last past for Haukridge Prisoner in the custody of the said Marshal who did return Quaedâ—m causa spolii c. contra Haukridge pendet indecisa pro judicio sententia paratus c. Qui quidem Will Haukridge remanet donec antedict causa per praefat Daniel Dun suerit hoc est causa And also upon another Habeas Corpus he made such a Return and otherwise Parata sit c. Which the Court took to be very insufficient and gave divers days to amend the Return and to shew the cause of Delay and why Sentence was not given and the Marshal would not amend his Return Upon which the Party being in Prison 16 or 18 Weekes always the Return was est parata c. And after in another Writ returnable Crast Ascentionis was another Return of Parata c. without shewing cause of Delay The Return also was insufficient because Quaedam causa spolii civilis maritima quae coram c. which is too general for two Causes 1. Because spolii is uncertain and ought to be specified in some more certainty besides it shews not the value of the Goods 2. That Maritima est super littus or in portu maris and yet the Admiral hath not Jurisdiction Super littus maris or in portu because they are infra corpus comitat And so it was adjudged in Lacies Case Dyer 15 Eliz. the Abbot of Ransey's Case 15 Eliz. Dyer fol. 236. Pasch 17 Eliz. in Scaccar ac contra Digges for which cause he ought to have said Super altum mare intra Jurisdictionem Admiralli See the Stat. 13 R. 2. c. 5. 2 H. 4. c. 11 19 H. 6. 7. For the first all the Court Resolved that it was insufficient also there was shewn no time of the spoyl And for this in the same Term the said Haukridge was bailed in open Court till the next Term according to the Books 6 H. 6. 44. 28 H. 8. c. 15. Note It was said by some That when Judgment is given that one shall be hanged till he be dead the King cannot alter the Judgment and command that he shall be beheaded for the Execution ought to be conform to the Judgment and with this accords 35 H. 6. fol 58. and Stamf. lib. 1. fol. 13. Vide 27 Ass pl. 41. F. N. B. 144. 22 Ass pl. 49. Duke of Somersets Case and the Lord Sturtons Case in Queen Mary's time and the Lord Datres his Case in H. 8. both which were hanged for Felony It was Resolved also That King H. 8. could not by
Fostér Justices That the Archbishop of Canterbury is restrained by the 23 H. 8. cap. 9. to câ—â—e any one out of his own Diocess for Diocâ—ses dicitur distinctio c. quae divisa vel diversa est ab Ecclesia alterius Episcopatus commissa gubernatio in unius and is derived a Di that signifies duo two et Electio quia separat duas Jurisdictiones And because the Archbishop of Canterbury hath a peculiar Jurisdiction in London for this cause it is fitly said in the Title Preamble and Body of the Act that when the Archbishop sitting in his exempt Peculiar in London cites one dwelling in Essex he cites him out of the Bishop of Londons Diocess ergo out of the Diocess And in the Clause of the Penalty of 10 l. it is said Out of the Diocess c. where the Party dwelleth which agrees with the signification of Diocess befóre And the words far off were put in the Preamble to shew the great mischief that was before the Act as the 32 H. 8 cap. 33. in the Preamble it is disseizins with strength And the Body of the Act saith such Disseizor the same extending to all Disseizors but Disseizin with force is the greatest mischief 4 and 5 Eliz. Dyer 219. So West 2. cap. 5. adjudged 44 Ed 3. 18. So 21 H. 8. cap. 15. In all which the Case is stronger than the Case at Barre there the word such in the Body of the Act referring to the Preamble which is not in our Case 2. The Body of the Act is No Person shall be henceforth cited before any Ordinary c. out of the Diocess or peculiar Jurisdiction where the Person shall be dwelling and if so then a fortiori the Court of Arches which sits in a Peculiar shall not cite oâ—hers out of another Diocess And the words out of the Diocess are meant of the Diocess or Jurisdiction of the Ordinary where he dwelleth 3. Observe the Preamble of the Act recites expresly That the Subjects were called by compulsory Process to appear in the Arches Audience and other Courts of the Archbishoprick of this Realm So that the Intention of the Act was to reduce the Archbishop to his proper Diocess unless in five Cases 1. For any Spiritual Offence or Cause committed or omitted contrary to Right and Duty by the Bishop c. which word omitted proves there ought to be a Default in the Ordinary 2. Except it be in Case of Appeal and other lawfull Cause where the Party shall find himself grieved by the Ordinary after the matter there first begun ergo it ought to be first begun before the Ordinary 3. In case the Bishop or Ordinary c. dare not or will not convent the Party to be sued before him 4. In case the Bishop or Judge of the place within whose Jurisdiction or before whom the Suit by this Act should be begun and prosecuted be party directly or indirectly to the Matter or Cause of the same Suit 5. In case any Bishop or other inferiour Judge under him c. make Request to the Archbishop Bishop or other inferiour Ordinary or Judge and that to be done in Cases onely where the Law Civil or Common doth affirm c. 1. Also there are two Provisoes which explain it also viz. That it shall be lawful for every Archbishop to cite any person inhabiting in any Bishop Diocess in his Province for matter of Heresie by which it appears that for all Causes not excepted he is prohibited by the Act. 2. There is a saving for the Archbishop calling any Person out of the Diocess where he shall be dwelling to the Probate of any Testament which Provisoe should be vain if notwithstanding that Act should have concurrent Authority with every Ordinary throughout his whole Province Wherefore it was concluded That the Arch-Bishop out of his Diocess unless in the Cases excepted is prohibited by the 23 H. 8. to cite any man out of any other Diocesse which Act is but a Law declaratory of the antient Canons and a true Exposition of them And that appears by the Canon Cap. Romana in sexto de Appellationibus Cap. de competenti in sexto And the said Act is so expounded by all the Clergy of England at a Convocation at London Anno 1 Jac. Regis 1603. Canon 94. And whereas it is said in the Preamble of the Act in the Arches Audience and other High-Courts of this Realm It is to be known that the Archbishop of this Realm before that Act had power Legantine from the Pope By which they had Authority not onely over all but concurrent Authority with every Ordinary c. not as Archbishop of Canterbury c. but by his Power and Authority Legantine Et tria sunt genera Legatorum 1. Quidam de latere Dom. Papae mittuntur c. 2. Dativi qui simpliciter in Legatione mittuntur c. 3. Nati seu nativi qui suarum Ecclesiarum praetextu legatione fingantur et sunt 4. Archiepiscopus Cant. Eboracensis Remanensis et Pisanis Which Authority Legantine is now taken away and abolished utterly 3. It was Resolved That when any Judges are by Act of Parliament if they proceed against the Act there a Prohibition lyes As against the Steward and Marshal of the Houshold Quod non teneant placita de libero tenemento de debito de Conventione c. So Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. Register fol. 185. So against the Constable of Dover So to Justices of Assize Quod inquisitiones quae sunt magni exactionis non capiantur in Patria So to the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequerâ— upon Art super Chart. c. 4. Stat Rutland cap. ult See F. N. B. 45. 46 c. 17 H. 6. 54. vide 13 Ed. 3. Title Prohibition So against all Ecclesiastical Judges upon 2 H. 5. 3. and therewith agrees 4 Ed. 4. 37. and F. N. B. 43. c. So the Case upon the Stat. 2 H. 5. c. 15. as appears by the President 5 Ed. 4. Keysons Case 10 H. 7. 17. See Paston's Opinion 9 H. 6. 3. See the 35 H. 6. 6. when any things is prohibited by a Statute if the Party be convicted he shall be fined for the Contempt to the Law And if every person should be put to his Action upon the Statute it would encrease Suits and a Prohibition is the shorter and easier way And the Rule of the Court was Fiat prohibitio Curiae Cantuar. de Arcubus Inter partes praedict per Curiam And Sherly and Harris jun. Sergeants at Law were at Councel of the Case Mich. 6 Jac. Reges Edward's Case The High-Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical objected divers English Articles against Thomas Edwards of Exeter As 1. That Mr. John Walton being trained up in Oxferd University was there worthily admitted to several Degrees of Schools and deservedly took upon him the Degree of Dr. of Physick 2. That he was a Reverend and well-practised man in the Art of Physick 3. That
you the said Thomas Edwards are no Graduate 4. That you knowing the Premisses notwithstanding you the said Edwards c. of purpose to disgrace the said Dr. Walton c. did against the Rules of Charity write and send to the said Dr. Walton a leud and uncharitable Letter taxing him therein of want of Skill and Judgment in his Profession c. And so far you exceeded in your said uncivil Letter that you told him therein in plain terms He may be crowned for an Ass c. 5. And further to disgrace the said Mr. Dr. Walton in the said University did publish a Copy of the said Letter to Sir William Courtney and others and in your Letter was contained Sipsâ—lam lichenen mentegram Take that for your Inheritance and thank God you have a good Father And did you not covertly imply thereby that the said Dr. Waltons Father late Bishop of Exeter was subject to the French Pox and Leprosie c. 6. That in another Letter you sent to Dr. Maders Dr. in Physick also you named Dr. Walton and made a Hoâ—n in your Letter Whether you meant not thereby that they were both Cuckolds or what other meaning you had 7. You knowing Dr. Walton to be one of the High-Commission in the Diocess of Exeter and having obtained a Sentence against him in the Star-Chamber for contriving and publishing a Libel did triumphingly say You had gotten on the Hip a Commissioner for Causes Ecclesiastical c. which you did to disgrace him and in him the whole Commission in those Parts 8. That after the Letter Missive sent to you you said arrogantly That you cared not for any thing this Court can do for that you can remove this Matter at your pleasure And this Term it was moved to have a Prohibition in this Case and the matter was well argued And at last it was Resolved by Coke Chief Justice Warberton Daniel and Foster Justices That the first six Articles were meerly Temporal and in truth is in the nature of an Action upon the Case for Scandal of Dr. Walton in his Profession of Physick and therefore for them a Prohibition doth lye for divers Causes 1. Because the Persons and Matters are Temporal 2. Because it is for Defamation which if any such shall be for the same it ought to begin before the Ordinary because it is not such an enormous Offence which is to be determined by the High-Commissioners nor doth Suit lye before them for calling the Doctor Cuckold as in the seventh Article And 't was said the Commissioners ought to incur the danger of Praemunire 2. It was Resolved That the Ecclesiastical Judge cannot examine any man upon his Oath upon the Intention and Thought of his Heart for cogitationis poenam nemo â—moret for the Proverb saith Thought is free And therefore for the 6th and 7th were Resolved as well for the Matter as for the Form to be such to which the Defendant was not compelled to answer And that to the 7th he might justifie the same because it appears upon his own shewing that the Doctor was sentenced in the Star Chamber Also the Libel is meer Temporal and if it were Spiritual such a Defamation is not examinable before the High-Commissioners As to the last Article it appeareth now by the Judgment of this Court that he might well justifie the said Words Also the Commissioners shall not have any Conuzance of Scandal to themselves they being Parties and such Scandal punishable by the Common-Law as was resolved in Hales Case in Dyer and in my Book of Presidents Hales Indictment c. The Bishop of Winchester being Visitor of Winchester-School and other his Collegues Anno 5 Car. cited the Usher of the said School by force of the said Commission to appear before them c. for which they incurred the danger of Praemunire So did the Bishop of Canterbury and his Collegues for citing one Humphry Frank Master of Arts and School-Master of Sevennock School c. and proceeding c. Mich. 6 Jac. Regis Taylor and Shoyl's Case Taylor informed upon the Statute 5 Eliz. cap. 4. Tam pro Dom. Râ—ge quaâ— prose in the Exchequer That the Defendant had used the Art and Mystery of a Brewer c. and averred That Shoyl the Defendant did not exercise the Art or Mystery of a Brewer at the time of making the Act nor had been Apprentice 7 years c. The Defendant demurred in Law upon the Informaâ—â—on and Judgment was given against him by the Barons And now in this Term upon a Writ of Errour the Matter was argued at Sergeants Inne before the two Chief Justices And two matters were moved 1. One That a Brewer is not within the said Branch of the said Act for the words are That it shall not be lawful to any Persons other than such as now use lawfully any Art Mystery or Manual Occupation to set up or use any Art Mistery or Manual Occupation except he shall have been brought up therein 7 years at least as an Apprentice And 't was said That the Trade of a Brewer is not any Air Mistery or Manual Occupation within the said Branch because it is easily and presently learned and needs not 7 years Apprenticeship to learn the samâ— it being every Country Housewifes Work And the Act of H. 8. is That a Brewer is not a Handicraft Artificer 2. It was moved That the said Averment was not sufficient for it ought to be as general as the Exception in the Statute is 1. To the first it was Resolved That the Trade of a Brewer viz. To hold a Common Brewhouse to sell Beer or Ale to another is an Art and Mystery within the said Act for in the beginning of it it is Enacted That no Person shall be retained for less time than a whole year in any the Services Grafts Mysteries or Arts of Cloathing c. Bakers Brewers c. Cooks c. Upon which words in the said Branch the Information is grounded Also because every Housewife brews for her private use so also she bakes and dresseth meat yet none can hold a Common Bakehouse or Cooks Shop to sell to others unless he hath been an Apprentice c. And the Act 22 H. 8. c. 13. is explained That a Brewer Baker Surgeon and Scrivener are not Handicrafts mentioned in certain penal Laws but the same doth not prove but they are Arts or Mysteries 2. As to the second it was Resolved That the Intention of the Act was that none should take upon him any Art but he who hath Skill or knowledg in the same for Quod quisque norit in hoc se exerceat And so the first Judgment was affirmed Mich. 6 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas The Case of Modus Decimandi Sherly Sergeant moved to have a Prohibition because a Parson sued to have Tythes of Sylva Coedua under 20 years growth in the Weild of Kent where by the Custom no Tythes were ever paid of any Wood And if
found by Office as appears by the Books 11 H. 4. 52. Ass 31. 30. Ass 28. 46 Ed. 3. bre 618. 9 H. 7. 24. c. 1 As to the first it was Resolved That the Wife should be endowed and that the Fine with Proclamations was not a Bar to her and yet it was Resolved That the Act 4 H. 7. c. 24. shall barre a Woman of her Dower by such a Fine if the Woman bring not her Writ of Dower within five years after the Husbands death as was adjudged Hill 4 H. 8. Rot. 344. in the Common-Pleas and 5 Eliz Dyer 224. For by the Act the Title of Feâ—e-Covert iâ— saved by taking Action in 5 years after she is uncovert c. But it was Râ—solved That the Wife was not to be aâ—dâ—d by that saving for in respect of her Husbands Attainder she had not any Right of Dower at his death nor could sue for the same after his death But it was Resolved That the Wife was to be aided by another former saving in the same Act viz. And saving to all other persons viz. who were not Parties to the Fine such Action Right c. as shall first grow or come c. to them after the Fine ingrossed and Proclamations made by force of any Gift in Tail or other Cause or Matter before the Fine levyed so that they take their Action and pursue their Title within 5 years after such Right come to them c. And in this Case the Action and Right of Dower accrewed to the Wife after the Reversal of the Attainder by reason of a Title of Record before the Fine by reason of the Seizin in Fee had and Marriage made before the Fine levyed according to the meaning of the said Act. And as to the Point of Relation it was Resolved That sometimes by construction of Law a thing shall relate ab initio to some intent and to some not for relatio est fictio Juris to do a thing which was and had essence to be adnulled ab initio betwixt the same Parties to advance a Right but not to advance a Wrong which the Law hates or to defeat Collateral Acts which are lawful and chiefly if they concern Strangers for true it is as hath been said that as to the mean profits the same shall have relation by construction of Law till the time of the first Judgment given and that is to favour Justice and advance his Right that hath Wrong by the Erroneous Judgment But if a Stranger hath done a Trespass upon the Land in the mean time he who recovereth after the Reversal shall have an Action of Trespass against the Trespassors and if the Defendant pleads there is to such Record the Plaintiff shall shew the Special Matter and maintain his Action And for the better apprehending the Law on this Point it is to know That when any man recovers any Possession or Seizin of Land in any Action by Erroneous Judgment and afterwards the Judgment is reversed as is said before and thereupon the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have a Writ of Restitution and that Writ reciâ—es the first recovery and the Reversal of it in the Writ of Errour is That the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall be restored to his Possession and Seizin Una cum exitibus thereof from the time of the Judgment c. Tibi praecipimus quod cadem A. ad plenariam seizinam tenementor praed c. restitui facias per Sacramentum proborum c. diligâ—nter inquiras ad quantum exitus proficua tenementor illor c. a tempore falsi Judicii c. usque ad Oct. Sanct. Mich. anno c. quo die Judicium illu c. revocat fuit c. et quâ—liter hoc praecept c. in Octâ—b c. By which it appears that the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour shall have Restitution against him who recovereth of all the mean Profits without any regard by them taken for the Plaintiff in the Writ of Erâ—our cannot have Remedy against a Stranger and therefore the words of the said Writ command the Sheriff to inquire of the Issues and Profits generally c. And therefore the Plaintiff in the Writ of Errour after the Reversal shall have any Action of Trespass for a Trespass mean and therewith agreeth Brian Chief Justice 4 H 7. 12. a. See Butler and Baker's Case in the third Part of my Reports good matter concerning Relations So as it was Resolved in the Case at Bar though to some intent the Reversal hath relation yet to bar the Wife of her Dower by fiction of Law by the Fâ—ne with Proclamations and five years past after the Husbands death when in truth she had not cause of Action nor any Title so long as the Attainder stood in force should be to do a Wrong by a fiction in Law and to bar the Wife who was a meer stranger and could have no Relief till the Attainder was reversed As to the other Objection That the Demandant on the Petition ought to have an Office found for hâ—r It was Resolved That it needed not in this Case because the Title of Dower stood with the Queens Title and affirmed it Also in this Case the Queen was not intitled by any Office that the Wife should be driven to traverse it for then she ought to have had an Office But in case of Dower though that Office had been found for the Queen which doth not disaffirm the Title of Dower in such Case the Wife shall have her Petition without Office See Sâ—dlers Case in the Fourth Part of my Reports And the Case put on the other side was utterly denied by the Court for it was Resolved That if a man seized of Lands in Fâ—e take a Wife of eight years of Age and alien his Lands and after the Wife attains to the Age of nine years and afterwards the Husband dyeth that she shall be endowed because the Title of Dower being not consummate till the death of the Husband and there being Marriage Seizin in Fee age of 9 years and the Husbands death for that cause she shall be endowed it being sufficient that the Marriage Seizin and Age happen during the Coverture So if a man seized of Lands in Fee take a Wife and after she elopes from her Husband now she is barrable of her Dower if during the elopement the Husband alien and after the Wife is reconciled she is Dowable So if a man hath Issue by his Wife and the Issue dyeth and afterwards Land discends to the Wife or she purchase Lands in Fee and dyes without other Issue the Husband for the Issue which he had before the Discent or Purchase shall be Tenant by the Courtesie But if a man taketh an Alien to Wife and afterwards he aliens his Lands and after that she is made a Denizen she shall not be endowed for she was not by her Birth capable of Dower but by her Denization it began But
Ayd Hill 6 Jacob. Regis Prohibitions Upon Ashwednesday in Feb. 1606. A great Complaint was made by the President of York to the King That the Judges of the Common-Law had in Contempt of the Kings Command last Term granted 50 or 60 Prohibitions out of the Common-Plâ—as to the President and Councel of York after the 6th of February and named 3 in particular 1. Between Bell and Thawptes 2. Another between Snell and Huâ—t 3. And another in an Information of a Riotous Rescue by English Bill by the Attorney-General against Christopher Dickenson one of the Sheriffs of York and others in rescuing one William Watson out of the Custody of the Deputy of one of the Purseyvants of the said Councel who had Arrested the said Watson by force of a Commission of Rebellion by the said President and Councel awarded Which Prohibition upon the Information was as was said denyed upon a Motion in the Kings-Bench the last Term but granted by Us. And the King sent for me to answer the Complaint and I onely all the rest of the Justices being absent waited upon the King who in the presence of Egerton Lord Chancellor and others of the Privy-Councel rehearsed to me the Complaint aforesaid And I perceived well that the King had thereupon conceived great displeasure against the Judges of the Common-Pleas but chiefly against Me To which I having the Copy of the Complaint sent me by the Lord Treasurer answered in this manner That I had made search in the Office of Prothonotaries of the Common-Pleas and as to the Cases between Bell and Thawpts and Snell and Huet no such could be found but I would not take advantage of a Misprisal And the truth was the 6th of February the Court of Common-Pleas had granted a Prohibition to the President and Councel of York between Lock Plaintiff and Bell and others Defendants and that was a Replevin in English was granted by the said President and Councel which I affirmed was utterly against Law for at Common-Law no Replevin ought to be made but by Original Writ directed to the Sheriff and the Statute of Marlbridge cap. 21. and West 1. cap. 17. authorize the Sheriff to make a Replevin So 29 Ed. 3. 21. 8 Eliz. Dyer 245. And the King by his Instructions neither had made the President and Councel Sheriffs nor could grant them Power to make a Replevin against Law which the Lord Chancellor affirmed for very good Law and it may well be we have granted others in the like Case Another Prohibition I confess we have granted between Sir Bethel Knight now Sheriff of the County of York as Executor to one Stephenson who made him and another his Executors and preferred an English Bill against Chambers and others in nature of an Action of the Case upon a Trover and Conversion of Goods and Chattels in the Testators Life to the value of 1000 l. And because the other Executor would not joyn with him he had no remedy at Common-Law but was forced to pray remedy there in Equity And I say the President and Councel have not any Authority to proceed in that Case for divers causes 1. Because there is an express Limitation in their Commission that they shall not hold Plea between Party and Party c. unless both or one of the Parties tanta paupertate sunt gravati that they cannot sue at Common-Law and in that Case the Plaintiff was a Knight Sheriff and man of great quality 2. Because by that Suit the King was deceived of his Fine which was 200 l. because the Damages amounted to 4000 l. And that was one of the Causes that the Sheriff began his Suit there and not at Common-Law Another Cause was that their Decrees which they take upon them are final and uncontroulable either by Errour or any other Remedy which is not so in the Kings Courts where there are five Judges for they can deny Justice to none who hath Right nor give any Judgment but what is controulable by Errouâ— c. And if we shall not grant Prohibitions in Cases where they hold Plea without Authority then the Subjects shall be wrongfully oppressed without Law and we denyed to do them Justice And their Ignorance in the Law appeared by allowing that Suit viz. That the one Executor had no Remedy at Common Law because the other would not joyn in Suit with him whereas every one Learnâ—d in the Law knows that Summons and Severance lyeth in any Suit brought as Executors And this was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Another Prohibition I confess we granted between the L. Wharton who by English Bill before the Councel sued Bank S. Buttermere and others for fishing in his several Fishings in Darwent in the County of C. in nature of an Action of Trespass at Common-Law to his Damages of 200 l. and for the Causes before recited and because the same was meerly determinable at Common-Law we granted a Prohibition And that also was allowed by the Lord Chancellor Then the King asked me the Case of Information upon the Riotous Rescous To which I answered That one exhibited a Bill there in the nature of an Action of Debt upon a Mutuatus against Watson who upon his Oath affirmed that he had satisfied the Plaintiff and owed him nothing yet because he did not deny the Debt the Councel Decreed the same against him And upon that Decree the Pursuyvant was sent to Arrest the said Watson who Arrested him upon which the Rescous was made And because the Action was in the nature of an Action of Dâ—bâ— upon a Mutuatus where the Defendant at Common Law might have waged his Law the Prohibition was granted and that was also affirmed by the Lord Chancellor Also I affirmed it was Rescous because the principal cause belonged not to them but it might be a Riot yet not punishable by them but by course of Law by a Commission of Oyer and Terminer Also I confess that we have granted divers Prohibitions to stay Suits there by English Bill upon penal Statutes for the manner of prosecution as well for the Action Process c. as for the Count is to be pursued and cannot be altered and therefore without question the Councel in such Cases cannot hold Plea which was affirmed also by the Lord Chancellor And I said no Court of Equity can be Erected at this day without Act of Parl as was Resolved in Q. Eliz. time in Parots Case and lately in the Case of the President and Councel of Wales And the King was well satisfied with these Reasons who gave me his Royal Hand and I departed from thence in his favour Pasch 7 Jac. Regis This Term a Question was moved at Sergeants Inne who by the Common-Law ought to repair the Bridges common Rivers and Sewers and the High-ways and by what means they shall be compelled to it and first of Bridges And as to them it is to be known that of common right all the Country shall be
c. Mills c. and to correct repair or pull down c. as cause requireth according to their discretions c. after the effect of the Statute made before the 1. of March 23 H. 8. By which appears that the Commissioners discretion was limited viz. to proceed according to the Statutes and Ordinances before made c. And the said Act provides That all and every Statute Act and Ordinance heretofore made concerning the Premises not contrary to this Act nor repealed shall stand good and be effectual for ever But the said Acts 25 Ed. 3. and 1 H. 4. are not contrary to the said Act nor repealed and always such construction ought to be made that one part of the Act may agree with another And according to this Resolution We certified the Lords of the Councel that the said Star 25 E. 3. 1 H. 4. remained yet in force and that the Authority given by the Commission of Sewers did not extend to Mills Mill-stanks Cawseys c. erected before Ed. 1. unless they have been inhanced and then they are not to be subverted but reformed by abating the Inhancement onely Trin. 7 Jacobi Regis The Case de modo Deciâ— andi and of Prohibitions Richard Archbishop of Canterbury with the Bishops of London Bath and Wells and Rochester divers Doctors of the Civil and Canon-Law as Dr. Dun Judge of the Arches Dr. Rennet Judge of the Prerogative Dr. James Dr. Martin and others came and attended the King at White-Hall the Thursday Friday and Saturday after Easter Term in the Councel-Chamber where the Chief Justice and I my self Daniel Judge of the Common-Pleas and Williams Judge of the Kings-Bench by the King's Command attended also where the King assisted with his Privy-Councel all sitting at the Councel-Table spake as a most Gracious Soveraign to this effect As He would not suffer any Novelties or Innovations in his Courts of Justice Ecclesiastical and Temporal so he would not have any the Laws which had Judicial Allowances in the Times of his Predecessors Kings of England to be forgotten And forasmuch as Contentions between the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts cannot but breed great Inconvenience to the Subjects especially when the Controversie ariseth upon the Jurisdiction of his Ordinary Courts of Justice And because he was the Head of Justice immediately under God and knowing what hurt may grow to his Subjects when the Jurisdiction of his Courts are drawn in question He thought it concerned him as a King to hear the Controversies between the Bishops and Clergy and the Judges of his Laws of England and to take Order that the one do not encroach upon the other And He said The onely Question then to be disputed was If a Parson or Vicar of a Parish sues one of his Parish in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in Kind or Layfee and the Defendant alleadgeth a Custom or Prescription de modo Decimandi if that Custom or Prescription shall be tryed and determined before the the Judge Ecclesiastical where the Suit is begun or a Prohibition lyeth to try the same by the Common-Law And the King directed that We who were Judges should declare the Reasons of our Proceedings and what Authorities in the Law we had to warrant our Proceedings in granting Prohibitions in Cases de modo Decimandi But the Archbishop of Canterbury kneeled before the King and desired he would hear him and others provided to speak in the Case for the good of the Church of England And the Archbishop inveighed chiefly against two things 1. That a Modus Decimandi should be tryed by a Jury because they themselves claim more or less modum Decimandi so as in effect they were Tryers in their own Cause or in the like Cases 2. He inveighed much the precipitate and hasty Tryals by Juries and after him Dr. Bennet made a large Invection against Prohibitions in causis Ecclesiasticis and he made five Reasons why they should try modum Decimandi 1. The first and principal was out of the Register fol. 58. quia non est consonans rationi quod cognitio accessarii in Curiae Christianitatis impâ—diatur ubi cognitio causae principalis ad forem Ecclesiasticum noscitur peâ—tinere And the principal cause is Right of Tythes and the Plea of Modus Decimandi sounds in satisfaction of Tythes and therefore the Conuzance of the Original Cause viz. the Right of Tythes belonging to them the Conuzance of the Bar of Tythes belonged to them And whereas it is said in the second Part of my Reports in the Bishop of Winchesters Case and 8 Ed. 4. 14. that they would not accept of any Plea in discharge of Tythes in the Spirituall Court he said they would allow such Pleas and had allowed them being duly proved before them 2. There was great inconveniency that Lay-men should be Tryers of their own Customs for they shall be Jurors in their own Cause 3. That the Custom of Modo Decimandi is of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction for it is a manner of Tything and all manner of Tything belongs to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and therefore he said if the Right of Tythes be of Ecclesiastical Conuzance and the Satisfaction also for them of the same Jurisdiction the same shall be tryed in the Ecclesiastical Court 4. In the Prohibitions of Modus Decimandi Averment is taken that though the Plaintiff in the Prohibition offer to prove Modum Decimandi the Ecclesiastical Court doth refuse to allow it but he said they would allow such Plea and therefore Cessante causa cessabit et effectus and no Prohibition shall lye 5. He said he can shew many Consultations granted in the Cause de modo Decimandi and a Consultation is of greater force then a Prohibition And Bacon Sollicitor General being as is said assigned with the Clergy by the King said less then Dr. Bennâ—t but he vouched 1 R. 3. 4. the Opinion of Hussey when the Originall ought to begin in the Spiritual Court and afterwards a thing cometh in Issue and is Tryable by our Law yet it shall be tryed by their Law See the Register 57 58. 38 Ed. 3 5. and 38 Ed. 3. 6. And the Judges made humble Suit to the King That in regard they perceived his Majesty in his Princely Wisdom derested Novelties and Innovations that He vouchsafe to suffer them to inform him of one Innovation which they did conceive would tend to hinder the Administration of Justice within his Realm Your Majesty for the due Administration of Justice hath made 14 Judges to whom you have committed not onely the Administration of ordinary Justice but crimina Laesae Majestatis Also in Parliament we are called by Writ to give our Advice and Councel to your Majesty and the Lords when we are required We two Chief Justices sit in the Star-Chamber Chancery Court of Wards and other High-Courts of Justice We in our Circuits do visit twice in the Year your Realm and execute Justice according to your Laws and if We
their Consciences and Oaths they can 2. That all the said Cases are clear in the Judgment of those who are Learned in the Laws that Consultation ought by the Law to be granted 1. For as to the first President the Case upon their own shewing is Three Persons joyned in one Prohibition for three several parcels of Land each having a several sort of Tything and their Interests being several they could not joyn and therefore a Consultation was granted 2. To the second the manner of Tything was alleadged to be paid to the Parson or Vicar which is uncertain 3. To the third The Modus never came in Debate but whether the Tythes did belong to the Parson or Vicar which being between two Spiritual Persons the Ecclesiastical Court shall have Jurisdiction and therewith agrees 38 E. 3. 6. 4. To the last The same was upon the matter of a Custom of a Modus Decimandi for Wooll for to pay the Tythe of Corn or Hay in Kind in satisfaction of Corn Hay and Wooll cannot be a satisfaction for the Wooll for the other two were due of common right The Bishop of London answer'd That the words of the Consultation were Quod suggestio praedicta mattriaque in eadem cohtenta minus sufficiens in lege existit c. So as materia cannot be referâ—ed to Form and therefore it ought to extend to the Moâ—us Decimandi To which I answer'd That when the Matter is insufficiently or uncertainly alleadged the Matter it self faileth and though the Matter be in truth sufficient yet if it were insufficiently alleadged the Plea wanteth matter Then the Lord Treasurer saâ—d he wondered they would produce things that made more against them then any thing had been said And when the King relyed upon the Prohibition in the Register when Land is given in discharge of Tythes the Lord Chancellor said That was not like this Case For there by the Gift of the Land the Tythes were discharged but in the Case de modo Decimandi an Annual Sum is paid yet the Land remains charged and is to be discharged by Plea de modo Decimâ—ndi All which I utterly denied For the Land was as absolutely discharged of the Tythes in casu de modo Decimandi as where Lands are given All which the King heard with patience and the Chancellor answer'd no more After the King with all his Councel had for 3 dayes together heard the Allegations on both sides he said He would maintain the Laws of England and that his Judges should have as great respect from all his Subjects as their Predecessors And for the Matter he said for any thing had been said on the Clergies part he was not satisfied and advised Us the Judges to confer among our selves and that nothing be encroached in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdâ—ction and they to keep within their Jurisdiction And this was the end of these three dayes Consultation Note Dr. Bennet in his Discourse inveighed much against the Opinion 8 E. 4. 14. and in my Reports in Wrights Case That the Ecclesiastical Judge would not allow a Modus Decimandi and said that was the Mistery of Iniquiâ—y and they would allow it The King asked for what cause it was so said in the said Books To which I answer'd That it appears in Linwood who was Dean of the Arches and a Profound Canonist who wrote in Henry the Sixth's time in his Title De decimis cap Quoniam propter c. fol. 139. b. Quod decimae soluantur absque ulla diminutione And in the Gloss it is said Quod consuetudo de non Decimando aut de non bene decimando non valet And that being written by so great a Canonist was the cause of the said Saying in 8 E. 4. that they would not allow the said Plea de modo decimandi And it seemed to the King that that Book was a good cause for them in Edward the Fourth's time to say as they had said But I said I did not rely thereon but on the Grounds aforesaid Lastly The King said that the High Commission ought not to meddle with any thing but that which is enormous and which the Law cannot punish as Heresie Schism Incest and the like great Offences And the King thought that two High-Commissions for either Province one should be sufficient for all England and no more Mich. 39 40 Eliz. In the Kings-Bench Bedel and Sherman's Case Mich. 39 40 Eliz. Which is entred Mich. 40 Elizâ— in the Common-Pleas Rot. 699. Cantabr the Case was this Robert Bedel Gent. and Sarah his Wife Farmers of the Rectory of Litlington in the County of Cambridge brought an Action of Debt against John Sherman in custodia mariscalli c. and demanded 550 l. and declared that the Master and Fellows of Clare-Hall in Cambridge were ieized of the said Rectory in Fee in right of the said Colledge and the 10 Jun. 29 Eliz. by Indenture dâ—nised to Christopher Phesâ—nt the said Rectory for 21 years rendring 17 l. 15 s. 5 d. and reserving Rent-corn according to the Statute c. which Rent was the antient Rent who entred and was possessed and assigned all his Interest to one Matthew Bats who made his last Wâ—ll and made Sarah his Wife Executrix and dyed Sarah proved the Will and entred and was thereof possessed as Executrix and took to Husband the said Robert Beâ—el by force whereof hey in right of the said Sarah entred and were possessed and the Defendant was thâ—n Tenant and seized for his life of 300 Acres of Arable Lands in Litlington aforesaid which ought to pay Tythes to the Rector of Litlington and in 38 Eliz. the Defendant Sâ—minavit grano 200 Acres paâ—c â— c. the Tythes whereof amounted to 150 l. And the Defendant did not set forth the same from the Nine Parts but carryed them away contrary to the Statute 2 E 6 c. The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Jury â—ound that the Defendant did owe 55 l. and to thâ— rest they found Nihil debet And in Arrest of Judgment divers Matters were moved 1. That Grano Seminata is too general and it ought to be expressed with what kind of Grain the same was sowed 2. It was moved If the Parson ought to have the treble value the Forfeiture being â—xoresly limited to none by the Act. or that the same beâ—ong to the Queen 3. If the same belong to the Parson if he ought to sue for it in the Ecclesiastical Court or in the King 's Temporal Court 4. If the Husband and Wife should joyn in the Action or the Husband alone and upon solemn Argument at the Barre and Bench Judgment was affirmed Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards John Bayley's Case It was found by Writ of Dien clausit extremum that the said John Bayley was seized of a Messuage and of and in the 4th part of one Acre of Land late parcel of the Demesne Lands of the Mâ—nnor of Newton in the
shall be extinct for Fealâ—y is by necessity of Law incident to the Reversion but the Rent shall be divided pro rata portionis and so it was adjudged And it was also adjudged That though Collins come to the Reversion by several Conveyances and at severall times yet he might bâ—ing an Action of Debt for the whole Rent Hill 43 Eliz. Rot. 243. West and Lassels Case So Hill 42 Eliz. Rot. 108. in the Common Pleas Ewer and Moylâ—s Case Note It was adjudged 19 Eliz. in the Kings-Bench that where one obtained a Prohibition upon Prescription de modo Decimandi by payment of a sum of money at a certain day upon which Issue was takeâ— and the Jury found the modus Decimandi by payment of the said sum but at another day the Case being well debated at last it was Resolved That no Consultation should be granted for though the day of payment may bâ— mistaken yet a Consultation shall not be granted where the Soitâ—tual Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Cause Taafi ld Chief Baron hath the Report of this Cause Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In an Ejectione Firmae he Writ and Declaration were of two parts of certain Lands in Hetherset and Windham in the County of Norfolk and saith not in two parts in three parts to be divided and yet it was good as well in the Declaration as the Writ for without question the Writ is good de duabus partibus generally and so is the Register See the 4 E. 3. 162. 2 E. 3. 31. 2 Ass 1. 10 Ass 12. 10 E. 3. 511. 11 Ass 21. 11 E. 3. Bre. 478. 9 H. 6. 36. 17 E. 4. 46. 19 E. 3. Bre. 244. And upon all the said Books it appears that by the Intendment and Construction of the Law when any parts are demanded without shewing in how many parts the whole is divided that there remains but one part undivided But when any Demand is of other parts in other form there he ought to shew the same specially And according to this difference it was resolved in Jordan's Case in the Kings-Bench and accordingly Judgment was given this Term in the Caseat Bar. Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Common-Pleas Muttoa's Case An Action upon the Case was brought against Mutton for calling the Plaintiff Sorce and Inchanter who pleaded Not Guilty and it was found against to the Damage of six pence And it was holden by the whole Court in the Common-Pleas that no Action lyes for the laid words for Sortilegus est qui per sortes futura praenunciat Inchantry is vordis aut rebus adjunctis aliquid praeter naturam moliri See 45 Ed. 3. 17. One was taken in Southwark with the Head and Visage of a dead man and with a Book of Sorcery in his Mayl and he was brought into the Kings-Bench before Knevet Justice but no Indictment was framed against him for which the Clerks made him swear never after to commit Sorcery and he was sent to Prison and the Head and Book were burn'd at Tuthil at the Prisoners charges The antient Law was as by Britton appears that who were attainted of Sorcery were burned but the Law at this day is they shall onely be fined and imprisoned So if one call another Witch an Action will not lye But if one say She is a Witch and hath bewitched such a one to death an Action upon the Case lyes if in truth the party be dead Conjuration in the Stat. 5 Eliz. cap. 16. is taken for Invocation of any evil and wicked Spirits and the same by that Act is made Felony But Witchcraft Inchantment Charms or Sorcery is not Felony if not by them any person be killed or dyeth The first Statute made against Conjuration Witchcraft c. was the Act 33 H. 8. c. 8. and by it they were Felony in certain Cases special but that was repealed by the 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. Mich. 7 Jae Regis In the Court of Wards Sir Allen Percy 's Case Sir John Fitz and Bridget his Wife being Tenants for life of a Tenement called Ramshams the remainder to Sir John Fitz in Tail the remainder to Bridget in Tail the reversion to Sir John and his Heirs Sir John and Bridget his Wife by Indenture demised the said Tenement to William Sprey for divers years yet to come except all Trees of Timber Oakes and Ashes and liberty to carry them away rendring Rent And afterwards Sir John dyed having Issue Mary his Daughter now Wife of Sir Allen Percy Knight and afterwards the said William Sprey demised the same Tenement to Sir Allen for 7 years The Question was Whether Sir Allen having the immediate Inheritance in right of his Wife expectant upon the Estate for the life of Bridget and also having the Possession of the said Demise might cut down the Timber Trees Oakes and Ashes And it was objected he might well do it for it was Resolved in Sanders Case in the 5th Part of my Reports That if Lessee for years or life assigns over his term or Estate to another excepting the Mines or the Trees c. that the Exception is void But it was answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and the Chief Baron that in the Case at Bar the Exception was good without question because he who hath the Inheritance joyns in the Lease with the Lessee for life And it was further Resolved That if Tenant for life Leaseth for years excepting the Timber Trees the same is lawfully and wisely done for otherwise if the Lessee or Assignee cut down the Trees the Tenant for Life should be punished in Wast and should not have any remedy against the Lessee for years But when Tenant for life upon his Lease excepteth the Trees if they be cut down by the Lessor the Lessee or Assignee shall have an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis and shall recover Damages according to his loss And this Case is not like the Case of Sanders for there the Lessee assigned over his whole Interest and therefore could not except the Mines Trees c. But when Tenant for life leases for years except the Timber Trees the same remaineth yet annexed to his Free-hold and he may command the Lessee to take them for necessary Reparations of his Houses And in the said Case of Sanders a Judgment is cited between Foster and Miles Plaintiffs and Spencer and Bourd Defendants That where Lessee for years assigns over his Term except the Trees that Wast in such Case shall be brought against the Assignee But in this Case without question Wast lyeth against Tenant for life and so there is a difference Mich. 7 Jac. Regis In the Court of Wards Hulme's Case The King in Right of his Dutchy of Lancaster Lord Richard Hulms seized of the Mannor of Male in the County of Lancaster holden of the King as of his Dutchy by Knights Service Mesne and Robert Male seized of Lands in Male holden of the Mesne as of his said Mannor by Knights
Service Tenant Richard Hulme dyed after whose death 31 H. 8. it was found that he dyed seized of the said Mesnalty and that the same descended to Edward his Son and Heir within Age and found the Tenure aforesaid c. And during nonagâ— Robert Male dyed seized of the said Tenancy peravail and that the same descended to Richard his Son and Meir as was found by Office 25 H. 2. within age and that the said Tenancy was holden of the King as of his said Dutchy by Knights Service whereas in truth the same was holden of Edward Hulme then in Ward of the King as of his Mesnalty for which the King seized the Ward of the Heir of the Tenant And afterwards Anno quarto Jacobi Rogis nunc after the death of Richard Male the lineal Heir of Robert Male by another Office it was found that Richard dyed seized of the Tenancy and held the same of the King as of his Dutchy c. his Heir within age Whereupon Richard Hulme Cozen and Heir of the said Richard Hulme preferred a Bill to be admitted to traverse the Office found 4 Jac. Regis And the Question was Whether the Office found 35 H. 8. be any Estoppel to the said Hulme or if that the said Hulme should be first driven to Traverse that And it was objected That he ought first to traverse the Office of 35 H. 8. as in the Case 26 E. 65. And that the first Office shall stand as long as the same remaines in force To which it was Answered and Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron and Court of Wards That the finding of an Office is not any Estoppel for that is but an Inquest of Office and the party grieved shall have a Traverse to it But when an Office is found falsly that Land is holden of the King by Knights Service in capite or of the King himself in Socage if the Heir fueâ—h a general Livery it is holden 46 Ed. 3. 12. by Mowbray and Persey that he shall not after adde that the Land is not holden of the King But that is not any Estoppel to the Heir himself and shall not conclude his Heir for so saith Mowbray himself expresly 44 Ass pl. 35. See 1 H. 4. 6. b. So 33 H. 6. 7. And there is no Book that saith that the Estoppel shall endure longer than his life but that is to be intended of a general Livery but a special Livery shall not conclude one And if a Jury find falsly in a Tenure of the King the Lord of whom the Land is holden may traverse that Office Or if Land be holden of the King in Socage c. the Heir may traverse the last Office for by that he is grieved and he shall not be driven to traverse the first Office And when the Father sues Livery and dyes the Conclusion is executed and past as is aforesaid And note there is a special Livery but that proceeds of the King's Grace and is not the Suit of the Heir and the King may grant it either at full age before aetate probanda or to the Heir within age as appears 21 E. 3. 40. And then is general and shall not comprehend any Tenure as the several Livery doth and therefore it is not any Estoppel without question See the 33 H. 8. cap. 22. 23 Eliz. Dyer 177. It was also Resolved in this Case that the Office of 35 H. 8. was not traversable for his own Traverse shall prove that the King had cause to have Wardship by reason of Ward And when the King comes to the Possession by a false Office or otherwise if it appears the King have any other Right to have the Land there none shall traverse the Office or Title of the King because the Judgment in the Traverse is Ideo consideratum est quod manus Domini Râ—gis amoveantur c. See 4 H. 4. fol. 33. in the Earl of Kents Case c. Mich. 7 Jacobi Regis Note The Priviledge Order or Custom of Parliament either of the Upper-House or House of Commons belongs to the Determination of the Court of Parliament and this appeareth by two notable Presidents 1. The one at the Parliament holden in the 27 H. 6. There was a Controversie moved in the Upper-House between the Earles of Aâ—undel and Devonshire for their Seats Places and Pre-eminences of the same to be had in the King's Presence as well in Parliament as in Councels and elsewhere The King by the Advice of Lords Spiritual and Temporal committed the same to certain Lords of Parliament who not having leisure to examine the same by the said Lords Advice referred it to the Judges of the Land to hear see and examine the Title c. and to report what they conceive herein The Judges reported as followeth That this matter viz. of Honour and Pre-eminency between the two Earles Lords of Parliament was a matter of Parliament and belonged to the King and his Lords in Parliament to be decided Yet being so commanded they shewed what they found upon Examination and their Opinions thereon Another Parliament 31 H. 6. 6th of March begun and after some continuance was prorogued to the 14 of February and afterwards in Michaelmas Term the same 31 H. 6. Thomas Thorpe Speaker of the Commons House was condemned in the Exchequer in 1000 l. Damages at the Duke of Buckingham's Suit for a Trespass done to him The 14th of Feb. the Commons mâ—ved in the Upper-House that their Speaker might be set at liberty to exercise his Place c. The Lords refer it to the Judges and Fortâ—scue and Prisoit the two Chief Justices in the Name of all the Judges answer'd That they ought not to consider this Question c. but it belongeth to the Lords of the Parliament and not to the Justices But as to their Proceedings in the Lower-Courts in such Cases they deliver'd their Opinions See 12 E. 4. 2. Hill 7 Jac. Regis In Cam. Stâ—ll Heyward and Sir John Whitbrook's Case In the Case between Hyward and Sir John Whitbrook in the Star-Chamber the Defendant was convicted of divers Misdemeanours and Fine and Imprisonment imposed on him and Damages to the Plaintiff And it was moved that a special Process might be made out of that Court to levy the said Damages upon the Lands and Goods of the said Defendant And it was referred to the two Chief Justices whether any such Process might be made who this Term moved the Case to the Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and it was unanimously by them all Resolved That no such Process could or ought to be made neither for the Damages nor for the Costs given to the Plaintiff the Court having no such power but onely to keep the Defendant in Prison till he pay them For for a Fine due to the King they can make no Process to levy it but they estreat it into the Exchequer which hath power by Law to write forth Process
assigned in the Ve Fa which was certified by Writ of Certiorari and upon this Writ no Return was made upon the Back of the Writ which is called Returnum Album And for that Cause this Easter Term the Judgment was reversed Trin. 7 Jac. Regis In Cur. Wardorum It was found by Writ of Diem clausit extremum after Roger Westcots death that the said Roger the day that he dyed was seized of and in the moiety of the Mannor of Trewalliard in his Demesne as of Fee and so dyed seized and that the moiety of the said Mannor 19 E. 3. was holden of the then Prince as of his Castle of Trematon parcel of his Dutchy of Cornwall by Knight-Service as appears by a certain Exemplification of Trematon for the said Prince made 9 Martii 19 E. 3. And the Words of the Extent were Willielmus de Torr tenet duo feoda et dimid Milit. apud Picke Stricklestombe Trewalliard per servitium militare reddit inde per annum 8 d. And it was Resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That the Office concerning the Tenure was insufficient and void for the Verdict of a Jury ought to be full and direct and not with a prout patet for now the force of the Verdict lyes upon the Extentâ— which if it be false he who is grieved shall have no remedy by any Traverse for they have not found the Tenure indefinite which may be Traversed but with a prout patet which makes the Office in that Point insufficient And upon that a melius inquirendum shall issue And herewith agrees F. N. B. 255. FINIS THE TABLE A. AUrum Reginae what and what right the Queen hath to it 19 Alienations by Bishops when voidable by their Successors and when the King or Queen may void them 75 76 Admiralty Jurisdiction thereof is no Court of Record 82 83 84 85. 88 89. 109. 199. 200 201 Absence takes not away a Title of Honour and why 111 112 113 Affidavits false when how and from whom punishable 134 135 Arches Court its Jurisdiction 147 Arch-Bishop of Canterbury his power to act and in what cases 148 149 150 151 Apprentice none may keep a shop c. or set up a Trade c. unless he have served seven years 154 155 Apples whether within the Act for ingrossing and what within that Act 160 B. Bishops when lawfull and their Authority what and whence derived 8 9 Buggery what and how punishable 36 37 Baron who shall be said to be a Baron of Parliament and in what cases 73 74 Benevolence the nature thereof and how may be imposed 124 125 Burgage Tenure what and if tenant in Burgage shall pay aid to the King to make his Eldest Son Knight 169 170 171 172 Bridges who ought to repair them 176 177 C. Custome whence to be paid and of what 16 17. 33 Commissioners High Commissioners their power 17 18. 47 48 49 50 51 52. 72 73. 87 88 89 90 Conspiracy where such action lies for what and against whom 22 23 24. 95 96 97 Commissions what of them are against Law e contra 29 30 31 32. 93 94 Consultation where grantable 43. 46. 67 68 69 70 71 Court Christian their Power 44 Court of Common-Pleas their Power and Antiquity 60 61. 113 114 Convocation authority thereof 76 Contempt what shall be said a high contempt of the King and how punishable 100 101 Chester Chamberlain there his power 118 119 Court what judgement shall be given when the Court is divided in opinion 123 124 Contract what shall be said an intire Contract 205 206 Common when suspended or discharged e contra 214 215 Custome where and how available 216 217 218 219 D. Dignity the King may erect any name of Dignity that was not before or transfer it 85 86. 116 117 Deed obtained by Covin shall not bind 95 Duresse per Gaoler 133 Dower what a barre thereto e contra 161 162 163 164 165 F. Forrests what so properly and what may be done therein 20 21 First-Fruits and Tenths given to the Crown 46 47 Ferry-man when he may throw goods over boord 65 Felony while an Attainder in force no Felony before to be answered for 105 Forgery where punishable and how 108 177 178 Felon when his goods are forfeit 127 Fine levied how avoidable and for what 127 128 129 130 131 132 133. 202 Fine to the Lord of a Manor in Copy-hold ought to be reasonable 143 144 145 146 G. Grants antient not to be drawn in question 6 Grants of the Kings when void e contra 91 92 What shall be a good Grant to elect Burgesses to Parliament 126 H. Heresie what how and by whom punishable 58 59 60 Hand when the right hand shall be cut off and for what 74 75 Habeas Corpus 89 90 Haeretico comburendo the Writ therein lyeth 98 I. Impropriations not examinable and why 4 5 Confirmed by time though defective 5 6 Impositions when they may be laid by the King 32 33 34 Justices of Peace when they may award Processe of Outlawry 107 108 Their Power as to making Warrants 136 137 138 L. Libells what shall be judged a Libell and how and where to be punished 35 35 Law of England to be expounded by the Judges of it and none other 147 Lease for Lives when determinable 216 M. Marriages Priests Marriages not void 9 Marches Courts there when erected and why as also the power of Lords President there 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 Man-slaughter what so adjudged 92 93 Modus Decimandi what where suable 155 156 157 158 159 160. 181 182 183 184 185 186 ad 193 Meane profits when to be answered to the King 196 N. Nobility Priviledge thereof what 100 101 102 O. Oath Ex Officio in what cases the Ordinary may examine Ex Officio upon Oath 25 26 27 28 Office where traversable 106 107 Offices new where and upon what cause they may be erected 121 122 123 Office found where void and why 195 196 197. 222 Where an Estoppell 210 211 P. Procedendo in Loquela not allowable 4 Pardons what offences the King may pardon 28 29 Premunire where it lies and where not and against whom 37 38 39 40 41 42. 98 99 Prohibitions in what cases grantable and against whom and by what Courts 43 44 45 46. 52. 60 61 62 63. 66 67. 80 81. 89. 90. 150 151 152 153 Piracy who shall have Pyrates goods 77 Proclamations what may be prohibited thereby and the validity thereof 78 79 80 Priests may not be arrested in Holy Church c. 104 105 Perjury where punishable 106 Poynings Law how it shall be expounded 114 115 116 117 Portion what shall be said a sufficient Childs Portion 117 Palatine County its Jurisdiction 119 Parliament Forms and Orders of Parliament 119 120 Prohibition where it lies and for what and in what not 155 156 157 158 159 160. 172 173 174 175 176. 181 ad 193 Primer seisin where the King shall have it 198 199 Priviledge of Parliament to be determined by the Court of Parliament 212 213 Processe not to be made out of the Star-Chamben neither for damages nor costs 213 Parish Clerke who shall chuse 219 220 R. Recognizances when forfeited and for what 1 2 3 Rent when determinable by the Lessors death e contra 35 36 Robbery where the Hundred may be sued 64 65 Return when insufficient e contra 135 136 Returnum Album 222 S. Stannaries the Kings Prerogative therein 9 10 11 Salt-petre the Kings Prerogative therein in several points 12 13 14 Simony what it is and the penalty thereof 78 Statute what Officers shall be within the Stat. 5 E. 6. 16. for avoiding corruption 82 83 What is an offence within 11 H. 4. 9. 102 103 Slander fined in the Star-Chamber and why 108 Seat in the Church right thereto 109 110 Scandalum Magnatum what and how punishable 138 139 Sewers the Commissiones therein their power and how antient 179 180 T. Tayle Tenant in Tail may forfeit his Estate and when and for what 6 7 Treason what shall so be accounted e contra 14 15 16 Accessary in Treason who 86 Tenure what shall be said a Tenure in Capite c. 140 141 142 Tithes substracted where to be sued for 165 166 167 Tithes to be paid and for what and the neglect thereof how punishable 193 194 Timber-trees Oakes and Ash who may cut e contra 208 209. 216 217 V. Vowes of what validity in Common Law 99 W. Women Maids c. to take and marry against their Wills is Felony 18 19. 104 Wales Justices there not to be constituted by Commission 50 51 Witnesses Testis singularis not allowable 68 Parties to be no witnesses 72 Widow when and how her election shall determine 117 Winding-sheets felony to steal them 118 Wills and Testaments fees for writing thereof and extortion therein how punishable 177 202 Ward who shall be a ward to the King 203 204 205 Words action for words where it lies 207 208. 221 The End
Nicholas Bishop of Norwich against whom he then being in the Custody of the Marshall the Kings Attorney did prefer a Bill of Premunire the matter whereof was this In Thetford in Com. Norfolke hath been de tempore cujus c. such Custom that all Ecclesiastical Causes rising in that Town should be determined before the Dean of that Town who hath particular Jurisdiction there and that none in that Town shall be drawn in Plea in any other Court-Christian unless before the same Dean And if it ought to be done against the same Custom this to be presented before the Mayor of the same Town and the Party to forfeit 6 s. 8 d. That One such sued in the Consistory of the Bishop for a thing arising within the said Town which was presented before the Mayor for which he forfeited 6 s. 8 d. The Bishop cited the Mayor to appear before him at his House at Hoxin in Suffolk generally pro salute animae but upon appearance◠〈◊〉 upon all the Matter and enjoyn'd him on pain of Excommunication to annul the said Presentment The Bishop had Council assigned him who objected That as well the Presentment as Custom was void and therefore not contra Coronam c. nor drawn by the Bishop ad aliud examen 2. They objected That the Bishop's Court was not intended within the Act of 16 R. 2. but in Cur. Romana aut alibi and this alibi ought not to be out of the Realm but it was Resolved by Fitz James chief Justice Et. per totam Curiam that be the Custom or Presentment good or bad this is a Temporal thing determinable at Common Law and not in Spiritual Court and therefore the Bishop hath incurred the Premunire 3. That alibi extends as well to the Bishop's Courts c. as well within the Realm as else-where and so the Court said it had been often adjudged whereupon the Bishop confessed the Indictment And Judgment was given That he shall be out of the King's Protection and that his Lands Goods and Chattels should be forfeited and his Body to be imprisoned ad voluntatem Regis c. Nicholas Fuller's Case In the great Case of Nicholas Fuller of Grays-Inn these Points were Resolved by all the Justices and Barons of the Exchequer 1. Resolved That no Consultation can be granted out of Term because it is a final award of the Court and can neither be granted in Term nor out of Term by all the Judges except in Court the name of the Writ signifying the same 2. Resolved That the Construction of the Statute 1 Eliz. cap. 1. and of the Letters Patents of High-Commission in Ecclesiastical Causes founded upon the said Act belongs to the Judges of the Common Law And therefore the Consultation which was granted with this restraint Quatenus non agat de authoritate et validitate Literarum Patentium pro causis Ecclesiasticis vobis vel aliquibus vestrum direct aut de expesitione et interpretatione Statuti de anno primo nuper Reginae c. As if the King hath a Benefice donative by Letters Patents this shall not be visitable nor deprivable by any Ecclesiastical Authority but by the Chancellor of the King or Commissioners under the Great Seal 3. Resolved When there is any Question concerning what Power or Jurisdiction belongs to Ecclesiastical Judges in any such Case the determination of this belongs to the Judges of the Common Law in what cases they have Cognizance and in what not And according to this Resolution Bracton lib. 5. tract de except cap. 15. fol. 412. Vide also Entries fol. 445. There was a Question whether Court-Christian should have Cognizance of a Lamp and a Prohibition was granted Quod non procedant in Curia Christianitatis quousque in Curiae â—ostra discussum fuerit utram cognitio placiti illius ad Curiam nostram vel ad forum Ecclesiasticum pertineat And all this appears in our Books that the Judges of the Common Law shall determâ—ne in what Cases the Ecclesiastical Judges have Power to punish any pro Laesioae fidei 2 H. 4. fol. 10. 11 H. 4. 88. 22 Ed. 4. 20. or of the bounds of Parishes 5 Ed. 3 8 8 Ed. 3. 69. 70. 18 Ed. 3. 58. 12 Ed. 4. 9 H. 7. 1. 10 H. 7. 9. And therefore in this Case of Fuller one other Restraint was added in the Consultation Et quatenus non agat de aliquibus scandalis contemptibus sâ—u aliis rebus quae ad communen legem aut Statuta Regni nostri Angliae suat puâ—ienda et determinanda 4. Resolved That if a Councellor at Law in his Argument shall scandal the King or his Government Temporal or Ecclesiastical this is a misdemeanor and and contempt to the Court for which he shall be indicted fined and imprisoned but not in Court Christian but if he publish any Heresy Schisme or erroneous Opinion in Religion he may for this be punished by the Ecclesiastical Judges for the Rule is Quod non est juri consonum quod quis pro aliis quae in Curiis nostris act a sunt quorum cognitio ad nos pertinet trahatur in placitum in Curia Christianitatis See the Book of Entries fol. 448. And for this cause a Consultation was granted Quoad Schismata Hereses c. Vide Mâ—ch 18 H. 8. Rot. 78. in Banco Regis The Case was a Leet was â—eld Jovis post Festum Sancti Mich. Arch. 17 H. 8. of the Prior of the House of St. John de Bethelehem de Shrine of this Mannor of Levisham in Com. Surrey before John Beare Steward there a Grand Jury was charged to inquire for the King of all Offences inquirable within the said Leet where one Phillip Aldwin who was a resident within the said Leet appeared Idemque Phillippus sciens quandam Margaretam uxorem Johannis Aldwin apud East-Greenwich infra jurisdictionem Letae proed pluries per antea corpus suum in adulterio viciose exercuissse c. eisdem sic juratis de dicta c. informationem veraciter dedit Upon which the said Margaret drew the said Phillip into the Archbishop of Canterbury his Court and there libelled against him for defamation of Adultery and that the Phillip said in hisce Angl. verbis Margaret Allen is a Whore and a Bawde and it is not yet three weeks agone since a man might take a Priest betwixt her Legs which words were parcel of the words by which he informed the Jury at the Leet And upon this he had a Prohibition and by this Record it appears and by the Statute 10 Ed. 3. c. 11. that Indictors of Lay-People or Clerks in Turneys and after delivering them before Justices shall not be sued for Defamation in Court-Christian but that the Plaintiff grieved shall have a Prohibition Vide Pasch 6 Eliz. In the Lord Dyers Reports which Case is not Printed John Halles in the Case of Marriage between the Earl of Hereford and the Lady Katharine Gray declared his Opinion against the
charged and therewith agrees 10 Ed. 3. 28. b. and the Star 22 H. 8. cap. 5. was but an affirmance of the Common-Law in that Point He that hath Toll of Men or Cattel passing over a Bridge ought to repair the same when no other is bound by Law to do it for he hath Toll to that purpose Et quisentit commodam sentire debet onus and with this agrees 14 Ed. 3. Bar. 276. Also a man may be bound to repair a Bridge ratione tenurae of certain Land but a particular person cannot be bound by Prescription for if he have not profit by the same his Ancestors Act shall not bind him But an Abbot or Corporation may be charged by Prescription and may bind their Successors Vide 21 E. 4. 28. 27 Ed. 3. 8. 22 Ass 8. 5 H. 7. 3. Yeaâ— they shall be compelled if time out of mind they have repaired it though of Alms and therewith agrees 10 E. 3. 28. So of a High-way all the Country ought to repair it but some may be bound particularly as in the Case of Bridges As he who hath Land adjoyning ought to scour and cleanse the Ditches next to the way to his Land and therewith agrees the Book 8 H. 7. 5. So of a common River all who have Passage by it ought to scour and cleanse it for it is as a common Street as it is said 17 Assi and 37 Ass 10. Pasch 7 Jacobi Regis Sir William Reades and Booth's Case In the great Case of Forgery in the Star-Chamber between Sir William Read Plaintiff and Roger Booth and Cuthbert Booth and others Defendants the Case was thus Roger Booth 38 Eliz. was Convict in that Court of publishing a Writing under Seal forged in Sir Thomas Greshams Name of a Rent charge of 100 l. out of all his Lands c. to one Markham for 99 years dated 21 year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign knowing it to be forged And afterwards the said Sir William Read exhibited the said Bill against the said Boothes and others for forging another Writing under Seal dated the 20th of Elizabeth in the said Sir Thomas Gresham's Name purporting a Deed of Feoffment of all his Lands except certain to Sir Rowland Heyward and Edward Hoogen and their Heirs in effect to the use of Markham the younger and his Heirs and for publishing the same knowing it to be forged was the Bill exhibited And upon hearing this Cause this Term these Doubts were moved upon the Star 1 Eliz. 1. If one who is Convict of publication of a Deed of eoffment or Rent-charge knowing the same to be forged again at another day forge another Deed of Feoffment or Rent-charge if he be within the Case of Felony within the Aâ—t which Doubt ariseth upon these words est-soons committed again any of the said Offences 2. The second Doubt was If a man commit two Forgeries one in 37 Eliz. the other in 38 Eliz. and he is first convicted of the last if he may now be impeached for the first 3. When Roger Booth was Convict in 38 Eliz. and after is charged with a new Forgery in 37 Eliz. If the Witnesses moving in truth that it was forged after the 〈◊〉 Conviction if the Star-Chamber hath Jurisdiction of 〈◊〉 4. When Cuthbert Booth who was never Convict of Forgery before if in truth the Forgery was done and so proved in 38 Eliz. If he might be convicted upon this Bill because the Forgery is alleadged before it was done 1 2. To the first and second Doubts It was resolved by the two Chief Justices and Chief Baron That if one be Convict of Forgery or publishing any Writing concerning Free-hold c. within the first Branch or concerning Interest or Term of Years c. in the second Branch and be convicted if afterwards he offend either against the first Branch or second that the same is Felony As if he forge a Writing concerning an Interest for Years within the second Branch and be convicted and after he forgeth a Charter of Feoffment within the first Branch et e converso that is Felony by express words of the Act. But if one forge a Writing in 37 Eliz and after he forge another in 38 Eliz. yet it is not Felony though he forge many Writings one after another for the Forgery c. which is Felony by the Act ought to be after Conviction or Condemnation of a former Writing 3. As to the third Doubt It was Resolved That the Allegation of the time by the Plaintiff in the Bill shall not alter the Offence but shall give to the Court Jurisdiction But if it appear that the Forgery or Publication was after the Sentence then the Court shall surcease 4. As to the last Point It was Resolved That the time of the Forgery is not material if it be committed before the exhibiting the Bill But if the date of such Writing supposed to be Forged had been mistaken there the Defendant could not be condemned of a Deed of another Date Pasch 7 Jac. Regis The Case of Sewers The Case was There was a Cawsey or Milstank of Stone in the River of Dee and in the City of Chester which Cawsey before the Reign of King Edward the first was Erected for the necessary maintenance of certain Mills at the end of the said Cawsey And now a certain Decree was made by certain Commissioners of Sewers for a Breach to be made by ten Poles in length in the said Cawsey and if by any Decree of the Commissioners by force of any Statute any breach may be made in that Cawsey was the Question And it was referred by Letters of the Lords of the Privy-Councel to the Chief Justices and Chief Baron who upon hearing of Councel Learned at divers dayes and good Consideration had of all Statutes of Sewers and Conferences among themselves It was Resolved as followeth 1. That the Stat. of Magna Chart. cap. 23. Quod omnâ—s Kidelli deponantur c. extended onely to Kidels viz. Open Wears for taking Fish But the first Stat. that extended to pulling down or abating any Mills Mill-Stanks or Cawseyes was 25 Ed. 3. cap. 4. which appointed onely such to be pulled down as were Erected in the Reign of King Edward the first or after But by 1 H. 4. cap. 12. upon complaint in Parliament of great damages by inhansing Mills Mill-stanks c. made before Edward the first 's Reign that Act appoints them to be surveyed and such as were found to be much inhansed to be corrected None of which Acts extend to the Case in question for that Cawsey was erected before Edw. 1. and never inhanced since the Erection And the 12 H. 4. c. 7. confirms all the said Acts. And by the 23 H. 8. c. 5. none of the said Statutes are repealed as to the Case in question for thereby the Form and Effect of the Commission of Sewers is appointed and power given to the Commissioners to survey Walls c. Fences Cawseys